1909-05-03

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I beg to move:
That a special committee of five members be appointed, composed of Messrs. Guthrie, Sproule, McIntyre (Perth), Haggart (Lanark), and Ethier, to consider the recommendations contained in the fourteenth report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, to amend rule 87 and 88 of this House, and that the said report be referred to the said committee.
The suggestions made by the Railway Committee are somewhat technical, referring to the practice on private Bills. They call for an amendment to the rules, and I think it better to have them considered by a special committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Wilfrid Laurier: As we approach the end of the session I have been asked by a number of hon. gentlemen if it was not the intention to have parliament pass an address to His Excellency Earl Grey and Her Excellency Countess Grey in recognition of their services to Canada and the manner in which they have discharged their official duties. I am happy to say there is no occasion for such an address because the term of His Excellency as Governor General will not come to an end this year.



WESTERN COAL STRIKE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCarthy. I desire to call the attention of the government, and particularly of the Minister of Labour, to the serious conditions which are being created in the west by reason of the coal strike. I would refer him to an article in the Lethbridge ' Daily Herald.'
Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member can only put a question at this stage.


Mr. McCARTHY.: I shall simply read this article and ask a question of the minister. The article is as follows:
The closing of the Taber mines brings Alberta face to face with a practical tie-up of every domestic coal-producing mine in the southern part of the province. If the situation is allowed to continue without any effort at settlement, Lethbridge and Alberta will be hit hard. Industries may be compelled to Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
close down for lack of coal and citizens will not be able to secure fuel except at famine prices. Farming operations will be given a serious setback, as the absence of a supply of cheap fuel will put the steam ploughs out of commission, and thousands of acres of land that would have been broken will be left untouched.	.
The Minister of Labour ought to get his Conciliation Act into operation. It is his duty to see that its provisions are enforced. If he allows the Act to become a dead letter in this trouble, he might as well expect it to be a deadTetter for all time to come.
Has the minister seen this article and what does he intend to do to bring the Act into operation? I express no opinion on the merits of the claims of the operators and miners.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Minister of Labour).: I have not read the article referred to. As to the situation in the west, the latest reports received by the Department of Labour are of a favourable nature. I communicated on Saturday to my friend the member for Leeds (Mr. G. Taylor) the statement sent me by the deputy minister, and I have nothing to take back from that statement. We expect that within a few days a board will be constituted and that there will be no necessity to prosecute those who have defied the law.


Mr. HERRON.: I wish to add to what has been said by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) that a serious condition has been created on the prairies owing to this strike. From the prairies come reports that coal is very short, that steam ploughs are without coal and that it is feared the seeding operations will be greatly delayed in consequence. I would urge the minister to make inquiries in regard to this serious situation.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Ontario and Michigan Power Company.-Mr. Conmee.
Mr. BLAIN.: Immediately after the discussion of this Bill in the House the other day I forwarded a copy of the original Bill -the correct copy together with the proposed amendments, to the Premier of Ontario. I have before me a letter acknowledging receipt and pointing out that this is a matter that ought not to be dealt with by this House but one coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Ontario legislature. The power question is very important in Ontario to-day; the development of power at Niagara and the outcome of the varied works now being undertaken are being watched with great interest by the people of the province. My hon. friend who

introduced the Bill is well aware that matters of this kind properly come within the jurisdiction of the legislature of Ontario as he has had similar measures before that body when a member of it. He is also familiar with the feelings of the people of the province upon matters of this kind. I am sure the people of Ontario will be very much disappointed if this charter is granted, and I will be surprised if the Ontario members of this Cabinet consent to legislation of this kind passing the House. I need not discuss the reasons for opposing this measure as they have been fully discussed in the committee both this session and last. It is true that the Bill has been greatly modified. Originally the Bill declared that this was a work for the general advantage of Canada but it is not now so wide in its scope. Still I do not think this House should interfere in this matter. There are no just provisions in the Bill that could not be dealt with and dealt with more effectively by the Ontario legislature. I think it the duty of the House and the committee to refuse my hon. friend's Bill. Of course I have no feeling against my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) for introducing such a Bill, my only point being that it is purely a matter for the Ontario legislature and that it should be dealt with by them.


Mr. CONMEE.: I have no doubt my hon. friend has the letter to which he refers, but I would point out to the committee that because the hon. gentleman has written a letter which has drawn an answer from the Premier of Ontario adverse to the Bill, that is no reason why this House should consider the matter from that standpoint.


Richard Blain: My letter was a plain, simple letter without any comment


James Conmee: I have no doubt about that.
Mr. BLAIN

without any comment at
all, and I would be quite willing to have my hon. friend write the Premier of Ontario for a copy of the letter.


James Conmee: 

registrar of Port Arthur was purchased in 1856, when there was no regulation as to the area that might be taken, and this location is, I believe, about six miles square. This is the answer from Toronto:
Stewart patent dated September 13, 1856. No reservation at all except five per cent for roads. Conveyance includes land to water's edge. No chain reserve.


Richard Blain: Who were the telegrams from?


James Conmee: The first telegram was from .T. M. Munroe, registrar of Port Arthur and the second from Mr. Hunt, of Toronto.


Mr. MACDONELL.: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the Crown has a right to lay out five per cent reserve as a chain reserve along the water's edge or otherwise?


James Conmee: I do not happen to know that. If my hon. friend knows it, I think he has knowledge that nobody else possesses. In the first place, it would be impossible to lay out a road allowance along the Pigeon river, because at that point the river is a cataract passing between two walls of rock. That was undertaken by Mr. Mowat in the case of the Kakabeka Falls Power Company. He refused to allow the company to go on because of that five per cent reservation, claiming that he could do as the hon. member suggests, take possession of the land adjoining the water's edge, and thereby become the riparian owner of the land under the water. But he abandoned that position, finding after looking into the matter that it was not tenable.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Has the Crown not the right, in appropriating that five per cent, to locate it where it desires in the whole area of the grant?


James Conmee: The Crown has a right to lay out that five per cent in roads for public use, and I was just going to explain to my hon. friend that the Crown has exercised that right on the Pigeon river, so that there is no right in the Crown now existing. The circumstances were these. The owner of this location was an American Trust company, for the original owner had passed away, the Pigeon Biver Lumber Company, now the Arrow River and Tributaries Lumber Company were doing business there, and the agent of that company charged $500 a year for tne privilege of using the roadway across this reservation, afterwards raising the price to $1,000 and again to $1,500, and they were getting it; but they wanted $2,000. This rather alarmed the other company, which was an American company, and they began to inquire.
I happened to be the representative in the local legislature at the time and the matter came to my attention. I advised them to refer the case to the government of the day, and ask them to exercise their right of laying out these roads in order that the
Mr. CONiMEE.
public might have the right to travel through this large location, which the reservation in the patent contemplated they should have, and the government did so. The government did so, an inspector was sent up, and two roads were laid out, a road running east and west and a road running north and south. So my hon. friend has not got even that shadow of a pretense to rely on. It has gone, and gone for ever.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he has any other evidence with him of the correctness of the statement he is now making, namely, that the Crown has already appropriated this five per cent and exhausted its right, and that that five per cent is not appropriated along the river banks.


James Conmee: I have made the statement to the House of my own personal knowledge. I was told by the Commissioner of Crown Lands at the time, the Hon. Mr. Gibson, that they could not lay out any more roads through the location because they had exhausted the five per cent. I cannot give my hon. friend any better information than that. He will have to take my word for it or doubt it.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Well, the matter rests there. Now the hon. gentleman has said, and correctly, I think, that the Premier of Ontario might regard with suspicion this measure because of the name that was placed upon it in promoting it. I believe in that respect, as in many other respects, the Premier of Ontario would be sustained by the same overwhelming majority he has behind him in other matters.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman appears to be casting doubt on the words of a member of this House. I may have misunderstood him, but if that was not his intention, then there is no breach of order.


Angus Claude Macdonell: There was no such intention whatever. The hon. gentleman has dilated upon the fact that the province of Ontario has granted several charters for powers in that same district, with which I quite agree. That shows who is exercising power, namely, the province; the province has, without question by this government, been granting water-powers in that neighbourhood, and in that respect the province of Ontario has pursued very much the same policy that it has with regard to other public utilities and portions of the public domain, namely, that it will regulate and dispose of its powers and its assets as it pleases, and in such a way as to inure to the benefit of the people of the province. That is why they are dealing with these powers, why they are dealing with the power to grant these concessions;
5357	MAY 3, 1909	5358
it is because they have the right to deal with them, and because they are dealing with them in accordance with a well conceived policy which is in the public interest. The hon. gentleman has said that the premier of the province has stated that these powers should be as free as air; precisely, as free as air to the neople that own them. But the hon. gentleman proposes to chain these powers up entirely, and not leave them free to the people of the province. What do the people of the province get? If the hon. gentleman gets his Bill and gets a valuable concession, what do they get in return? What do the people of the Dominion get in return for this exploitation of a part of the public domain? They get nothing. Therefore the hon. gentleman is seeking to contravene that very policy.


James Conmee: If the hon. gentleman will look at clause 14 of the Bill he will see that if the company gets these powers and uses them, the province and the Dominion will get the development of resources that are now idle, and they will have perpetual control, through their parliament and through their representatives.


Angus Claude Macdonell: This is the first time I have ever heard that public control over a utility brings a compensation to the people as a payment for it, and that is all the public domain has to yield.


James Conmee: There is no public domain. I have just shown that the land has passed out of the hands of the Crown in 1856. Under the patents of that day the right extended to the centre of the stream. If the hon. gentleman will show by some argument of some effect that the province has any right, even a shadow of a right, he would be making some point, which he has not yet done.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The hon. gentleman has not established by any evidence that this part of this river has been granted, i do not understand the hon. gentleman s words even to mean it; because certainly the telegrams he has read contain no such statements. The bed of this Tiver, as are the beds of all the rivers in the province of Ontario, is part of the public lands of the province, and as such is vested in the Crown, in the right of the province, and there has been no grant made of the bed of these rivers, from the statement of the hon. gentleman himself. Then the hon. gentleman says that it is because they are going to export this power that it becomes an international work. It becomes no more an international work than a factory that manufactures furniture, or boots and shoes, or anything else. I cannot see the difference. If it exports power, that is a particular reason why the people of this country 1694
should have some control over it. The Bill has been very much boiled down, and many of the notoriously objectionable features have been removed, but that does not touch the vital point of this Bill. I do not care how the hon. gentleman may pare it down, may take out a river here or a river there, or a power here or a power there to export; the fact remains that the hon. gentleman is seeking to obtain from this parliament a grant of what belongs to the people of the province of Ontario. The hon. gentleman argues that this is an international stream. Now with all due deference to the opinion of hon. gentlemen who differ with me, I venture to say that that does not alter the fact. The British North America Act, by section 109, vested in the province of Ontario, at confederation, all this public domain, with its lands, its minerals, its royalties, its mines, its water and so forth, and part of that public domain is the bed of the rivers, which are public lands.


James Conmee: Does the hon. member contend that the province of Ontario has ownership in the water?


Angus Claude Macdonell: I am dealing with that; I say that all those assets formed part of the public domain at the time of confederation. Now the fact that a river divides two provinces, or divides this country from a neighbouring country, makes no difference in the ownership of the bed of the river. It makes only this difference, that in so far as the waters in rivers are concerned, they are international waters, but the province has the same rights over the Canadian portion of that river as it has over a stream in the highlands of Ontario. The province has to police all those waters, it has to regulate them municipally, and has the same control over them that it has over the inland waters.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: I would like the hon. gentleman to say who he thinks owns the title of this Pigeon river. It is evident from these telegrams that the land next to the edge of the stream has been granted.


Angus Claude Macdonell: No.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Yes, that is what the telegram says.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The hon. gentleman knows, and I will accept his word. He is very fair in these matters! as in all matters. The Crown has reserved a five per cent area out of this whole grant. Now the hon. gentleman tells us that he knows that the Crown has exercised a part of that righ1>-I do not understand him to say the whole of it, by opening up highways. Now the Crown may apply or appropriate any right that it likes. The hon. member for Essex knows well that along all the navigable rivers and streams or lakes in the province

of Ontario, the Crown has reserved one chain along the shore.


Mr. LANCASTER.: By general statute?


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes. 1 will abandon my own argument for a moment and take the hon. gentleman's argument. I will say that the fee of half of the bed of the Pigeon river, that portion which lies in the province, is vested in Ontario. The objection that I am making is that this parliament is attempting to deal with something that belongs exclusively to the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario has asserted its claim. It is to-day, as it were, at the bar of this House claiming that this parliament should not exercise the rights of ownership that the province is lawfully entitled to under the constitution of the country, and appealing to this parliament not to make a grant of a part of the public domain of Ontario, to a band of commercial exploiters who are seeking to obtain, in defiance of the people of Ontario, that which belongs to the people, without paying any compensation therefor. The right hon. gentleman who leads the government, I understand, desires that clause 2 of the Bill should be dropped. That is the clause which declares the work to be for the general advantage of Canada. That very fact is an argument that this is not a Dominion undertaking, but that it is local and provincial in its nature. It is either one thing or the other; it is either a Dominion undertaking or a provincal undertaking. If it is a Dominion undertaking it is proper that it should be dignified as a work for the general advantage of Canada. But, if it is not, that is an argument that the Bill is before the wrong parliament and that the promoters are invoking the wrong jurisdiction. As such I think that logically the whole Bill should fall to the ground. It is shorn of many of its objectionable features because of the abandoning of the Nipigon river from the operation of the Bill. In what way have these rivers been dealt with in the past? Take, for example, the Niagara river, which affords the best precedent and in fact is the only precedent in dealing with international waters. The argument which has been made by those interested in this Bill is that the Pigeon river is navigable and international. The fact that it is navigable in no way vests in this government the fee in the waters or the lands under those waters. So far as navigation and shipping are concerned, under the British North America Act, the right is transferred to this parliament. It has the right to regulate navigation and shipping. That is right, that is admitted and there can be no two opinions about it. Now, we come to deal with the Niagara river. It is navi-


Angus Claude Macdonell: gable from Fort Erie to Chippewa, above the falls, for some distance below the falls and then below that again from Queenston to Niagara-on-the-Lake, and it is international throughout its entire length and divides the province of Ontario and New York state. The first dealing with this water internationally was in 1882, when Lord Dufferin, the then Governor General, conceived the very praiseworthy 'scheme of forming an international park at Niagara Falls.


Wilfrid Laurier: 1882?	-


Angus Claude Macdonell: Perhaps it was 1872. I think my right hon. friend is right in that. At that time Sir Oliver Mowat was the premier of Ontario, and negotiations were carried on between the government of Ontario and the state of New York.


James Conmee: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I think the Bill is under discussion. I do not think the hon. gentleman is discussing the Bill before the committee. I do not think the question that the hon. gentleman is discussing is germane to the question. I understand we are discussing the first section of the Bill now.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before you rule, Mr. Chairman-


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I am prepared to rule. The question as to the incorporation of this company involves a very broad view and I am not prepared as yet to rule that the hon. gentleman is out of order.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I was just showing the analogy between the dealings of this parliament and the provincial legislature with the Niagara river which is identical in all respects for the purposes of this argument, with the Bill before the, committee. The province of Ontario, Sir Oliver Mowat being the Premier at that time, dealt with the state of New York and legislation of this parliament was not invoked at that time. They dealt with the riparian rights on both sides of the river and formed an international park. That was quite sufficient, and no one ever questioned the right of these parties to deal with that river and to dispose of the lands bordering upon it as they did. In 1892 the Niagara Power Company, then exploiting the power on the American side, came .to this country and sought charter rights to utilize the power of the Niagara Falls on the Canadian side. It was then an experiment and the company,
I presume, felt that if the experiment were successful on the American side they ought to get the benefit of their venture by having certain powers on the Canadian side. At that time the Canadian Niagara Power Company was incorporated by the province of Ontario and eminent counsel both in Ontario and in New York state

passed opinions upon the legality and propriety of its charter rights. The New York state authorities gave the powers on the American side and the province of Ontario gave powers on the Canadian side. The company has been operated from 1892 to the present time under a provincial charter exclusively. That was the pioneer company at the Falls. The Niagara case is exactly similar to that of the Pigeon river. It is an international water and navigable above and below the falls just the same as the Pigeon river. Other companies have sought rights on the Canadian side since then, and I think I am correct in saying that only two companies have been incorporated. One is the Electrical Development Company, of comparatively recent organization, and the other is the Ontario Power Company. What did the companies do when they wanted charter rights? They went to the province of Ontario whenj I think, Sir Oliver Mowat was still premier, and they made a bargain with the province for certain power rights. They entered into a solemn compact and agreement with the province and they legislated in Ontario upon that agreement and legalized it. Then they came down to this parliament and this government and Sir Aemilius Irving, as counsel for the province, came on both occasions and presented to this House and this government the joint agreement of the contracting parties, the Ontario government on one hand and the Power Company on the other. They presented their agreement and jointly asked this parliament to confirm that legislation and agreement. Presumably they came here because they wanted wider powers to help their bonding privileges. Any hon. gentleman can see that it was desirable and wise that they should have the legislation and agreement confirmed so that in case of a difference, or dispute, or disagreement at any future time they would have a tribunal to appeal to that had incorporated them and that was not a party to the bargain. That has been the practice in the past and this is an invasion. I do not see how the promoter can expect to have it carried. He has come to this House attempting to exploit the water-powers of the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario has a policy in regard to water-powers and is exacting royalties, as other provinces are, from those who use these water-powers. The provinces at confederation got little enough; the total budget of Ontario to-day is somewhat less than the budget of the city of Toronto, and I think the same thing applies to the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal. The provinces gave up most of their rights at confederation and I think they are entitled to the few rights they did retain, their rights of property, water-powers, &c.
Other provinces have sold these powers and are to-day deriving revenues from them. What Ontario asks in this respect is that you keep your hands off her.


James Conmee: How would this Bill prevent the province from getting a revenue if it has rights? There is nothing in the Bill to that effect. The province of Ontario has to be applied to and has to agree.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Then why is the hon. gentleman asking for this Bill here?


James Conmee: Because the powers cannot be obtained and the securities be dealt with unless they get Dominion legislation.


Angus Claude Macdonell: To what clause in the Bill is the hon. gentleman referring?


James Conmee: Clause 19. Under that clause the province would have to be paid for any


Angus Claude Macdonell: There is no right of royalty or compensation there.


James Conmee: I beg to differ from the hon. gentleman on that point.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The hon. gentlenjan is mistaken in that. The hon. gentleman said there was a right of royalty reserved in this Bill.


James Conmee: I did not say anything of the kind. I said if the province had rights they had to be paid for.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I accept that, and if they have rights in the water-power and the bed of the river where are they to get compensation for them?


James Conmee: They cannot be taken without payment.


Angus Claude Macdonell: To whom?


James Conmee: To them, to whoever the owners are.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I can hardly believe the hon. gentleman is arguing what he says.


James Conmee: The government has no more powers to take property from a private individual or any one else than a railway company and a railway company cannot take property without paying for it. The hon. gentleman knows that much about the Bill.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The hon. gentleman is asking permission to utilize a waterpower. There is no provision for payment or compensation, direct or indirect. He is asking a perpetual franchise for something which the province is selling in other places, as other provinces are. Thus, although the Bill is whittled down, although it is not as fat a proposition as when it first came before the House, it is no less objectionable now than it was then, in principle and in fact. The hon. gentleman

cannot point to any similar Bill passing this House. If we pass this no part of the public domain of any province is safe, water-power is as much a part of the property of the province of Ontario as the parliament buildings at Toronto, the model farm at Guelph or the timber reserves of the province. The question of value is of no consequence, it is a question of principle because if this parliament arrogates to itself the right to exploit the public domain of any province, it matters not how much you take on the first occasion, you admit the principle and we are told in every committee of this House now as a justification for passing Bills that a similar Bill passed last week, or last month or last session. Precedents are created and are followed, and I suppose that is only right and proper, but I warn the government and this committee against creating this precedent.
The premier of Ontario is as stoutly opposed to this legislation to-day as when the Bill was first brought in, and I ask the right hon. gentleman what compensation this House is going to get from openly defying the express wishes of a province in regard to a matter in which it has an absolute vested right. The government of Ontario sent counsel down to the committee and the matter was argued there. It is true that the committee by a large majority sustained the promoter of the Bill but the majority of that committee was not composed of gentlemen from Ontario. I do not think that this matter has been fairly dealt with. The right hon. gentleman and his ministers were not in that committee but they are here in this committee, in the tribunal to which the province of Ontario now appeals and the facts are before them. The province of Ontario is here at the bar of the House, demanding and asking that this legislation be not passed. They say:	You are
exploiting part of our public domain, of what belongs to the people of Ontario, and vesting it in a band of private exploiters for their own private commercial purposes. Staring that fact in the face, is it right or proper to grant the powers asked for in this Bill? No hon. gentleman can successfully argue that this is not a part of the public domain of Ontario. I trust that the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Clarke) who is a lawyer himself


Alfred Henry Clarke: Will the hon. gentleman say how he distinguishes this from the case of the Winnipeg river at Kenora where it was held that the bed of the river had passed to tne owners of the adjoining property? This case was recently dealt with by the Court of Appeals.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I do not know anything about that case.


Angus Claude Macdonell: 


Alfred Henry Clarke: That was held to be a navigable river.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Here we are dealing with the case of this parliament giving to a private exploiter something that belongs to a province.


James Conmee: You are assuming that.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I think that in that case it was decided that where the land is granted to the water's edge the owners of that land take the ownership to the centre of the river.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Not necessarily.


Alfred Henry Clarke: That was held in that case.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Granting all he says, what has that to do with water-power which is part of the public property just as timber or mines?


Alfred Henry Clarke: If they own the bed of the river, do they not own the water over it?


Angus Claude Macdonell: No, not necessarily, the Rivers and Streams Bill settled that, and according to the judgment of the Privy Council the water is not vested. The hon. gentleman who is promoting the Bill does not attempt to argue that, he says the waters are vested in the Dominion. The only proper way to dispose of this Bill is to have it withdrawn, and so free this House from the responsibility of raising a question that perhaps cannot be easily set at rest. The hon. gentleman who promotes the Bill says the premier of Ontario has sometimes had his acts disallowed. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the acts of this parliament have sometimes been held to be ultra vires, and I question if this Act is not in its essence ultra vires of the Dowers of this parliament. So why embark on troubled waters of that character? The proper thing to do is to send this Bill to the province of Ontario which is dealing with similar Bills and has the only just right to deal with them.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps I may be allowed to interfere in this debate at this moment to endeavour to ascertain where we are and what are the questions before us. The first question is that of jurisdiction, has this parliament jurisdiction over this Bill or has it not? My hon. friend who has just addressed the House, (Mr. Macdonell), has stated emphatically that in his opinion this parliament has no jurisdiction over the matters which are now before us. I beg to take an altogether different view from my hon. friend and I think that on reflection he will agree that his opinion is erroneous. This Bill seeks to provide for the incorporation of a company to which power is to be given to develop water-power in a navigable stream,

the Pigeon river, which is a part of the boundary line between Canada and the United States. That is what gives jurisdiction to this parliament.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Why does the right hon. gentleman say that?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is an international stream. This is a matter on which the Dominion alone has jurisdiction. On all matters of an international character this parliament and not the local legislature has power. The promoter of this Bill has truly stated that this Bill alone will not effect the object sought. Similar legislation must also be obtained from a foreign country. If there is no legislation from the American authorities my hon. friend will be powerless to go on whether he obtains power from this government or the legislature of Ontario, he would have no right to put dams across the river, he must have the joint control of the two legislatures, and this is the reason why this parliament and not the province of Ontario has jurisdiction in this matter. It is an international stream and even if there was a similar jurisdiction in this parliament and in the province of Ontario, for reasons of policy alone this parliament should assume the jurisdiction in all matters in which it is sought to interfere with navigable rivers which are of an international character. The Minister of Justice gave his opinion that we have power to deal with this matter, and for my part I am disposed to agree that not only have we power, but we alone, the parliament of Canada, have the right to legislate in matters of this kind.
That point being granted there was no difficulty in removing the second section of the Bill, which asserted that the works authorized were for the general advantage of Canada. If these words were necessary to give jurisdiction to this parliament, I would be opposed to these words, but in my humble opinion these words are absolutely unnecessary and do not add to the powers that we propose to give, I believe they are a useless encumbrance and I asked my hon. friend to remove them and he has done so.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They do not make any difference if we do pass the Bill?


Wilfrid Laurier: It does not make any difference whether they are in it or not. My opinion and the opinion of the Minister of Justice is that this parliament has jurisdiction to pass the legislation now before us. I stated on a former occasion that the whole point is on the question of expropriation. There would apparently be no objection to the passage of this Bill if the powers of expropriation were removed. This only strengthens the argument I make, that we are losing time in discussing the provisions of the
Bill which are not essential. We should come at once to the power of expropriation and ascertain whether the powers of expropriation exceed the powers which we are competent to grant. The whole argument of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) has been directed not against the Bill, but against the powers of expropriation, as he says, taking powers from Ontario which belong to it. That will be discussed later on. When the Bill was before us on a former occasion I stated that the position of the government would be that we would not interfere with the legislative powers of the province of Ontario, and acting upon this opinion, expressed by the government, my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) has agreed to remove from the powers of expropriation the Nipigon river and this is satisfactory to the gentlemen opposing the Bill. When we come to discuss the powers of expropriation which still remain on the Pigeon river, I said to my hon. friend, that I for one would reserve an open mind and I would see whether or not we were invading the powers of the province of Ontario. So it seems to me that all the objections of hon. gentlemen opposite will be met if we come at once to the powers of expropriation because that is the only difficulty there is in this Bill, and the clauses relating to expropriation could lie amended or not amended according to their views, that would be a question to be debated later on. At this moment it seems to me we should expedite the business of the House. If we want to secure the blessing of an early prorogation we should come to the real difficulty in the case and not debate what is not in issue.


Mr. LENNOX.: My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) at a moment when the Prime Minister was engaged,, called the attention of the committee to the fact that he had a communication from the Premier of Ontario. According to the notice of amendments in the Votes and Proceedings, the amended Bill was to come up for the first time to-day, so we could not expect that the Ontario government, having had an intimation as to the position which the government proposed to take when this matter was under discussion on April 19, would be prepared to present its case today for the consideration of the committee. If the rights of the province are to be reasonably safeguarded, it is at least essential that this Bill, being admittedly a measure that may invade provincial rights, the Ontario legislature should at least have an opportunity of presenting its views each time the Bill is presented in an altered form. I understood the position of the right hon. the Prime Minister as enunciated on April 19, in a somewhat broader sense than his suggestion of this morning, and I venture to say that the Ontario government and the members of this House

interpreted it in the same way. I am quite prepared to take the view of the right hon. gentleman, as he suggested this morning, possibly what he meant, but I think the language he used on April 19 is capable of a broader interpretation, and I shall read, the right hon. gentleman's words in order to strengthen my request to him to allow this matter to stand until the province shall be in a position to properly present its views to the members of the House. The right hon. gentleman, on the occasion to which I refer, dealt with the decision of the Minister of Justice and concluded by saying that for his part, the Minister of Justice, having said that this parliament had jurisdiction, he would be prepared to accept the minister's views rather than the views of other gentlemen who had spoken. Then the Tight hon. gentleman continued. I understood at the time, as I think the House did, that that was virtually an end of this matter. That he had come to the conclusion that, although parliament had iurisdiction if it desired to exercise it, he wished the promoter of the Bill to understand that this was a matter of fair regard for the rights and interests of the province, and that the jurisdiction of this parliament was not going to be exercised in this case. This is what the right hon. gentleman said:
But that is not the kernel of the discussion we have had at present. It matters not whether this parliament has jurisdiction, or whether the local legislature has jurisdiction, the point is this: Are there provisions in this Bill which affect the power of the local legislature and the local government? That is the only point which weighs with me. Section 2 of this Bill is a clause with which we are familiar-and it was not invented I may sav to mv hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) by the Liberal party; it is a relic of former days, and, perhaps in the case of this as in the case of other relics, we may be wrong in not doing away with them. At all events, the hon. gentleman and I may agree that it ought to be eliminated from the Bill. But the whole discussion we have heard this afternoon has been directed to one point, and one point alone-and that is that the power of expropriation of water-powers belonging to the local government of Ontario contained in this Bill should be eliminated.
I think if these two sections were amended, there would not be so much objection to the Bill. I would have some abjections to another which I shall come to presently. I was struck by the argument put forward by the hon. members on either side-especialf that of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Boyce) that the local government of Ontario has a policy on this question reserving to themselves the exploitation of all water-powers, refusing to giye them to private companies.
I may interject here that I understood that the right hon. gentleman subscribed Mr. LENNOX.
to the doctrine that the policy of the local legislature having been enunciated, that policy would be respected on this occasion. The right hon. gentleman went on to say:
If we pass this Bill we interfere directly with this principle; and under those circumstances, holding as I have held all my life, to the sacredness, if the word is not too strong, of provincial rights, while we have the brute power to override those powers, it is a question whether we should do so, and it is a question upon which I would invite the serious consideration of my hon. friend who is promoting this Bill.
The right hon. gentleman_ has always on such occasions, not only to members on his own side of the House, but to members on this side, expressed himself in the politest possible language; and I understood him to give a very definite intimation to the hon. gentleman, though in polite language, that he had better drop the Bill. My impression was that from that time the Bill was dead, as I think it ought to be. But whether that was a correct construction of the right hon. gentleman's remarks or not, the Ontario government are justified in so understanding them, and if we are to act in such a way as to have harmony among the various units which constitute the Dominion of Canada, we must pay some regard to the wishes of the provinces or at least give them an opportunity to present their views to the House before we adopt legislation which is contrary to their express opinion. In that view, with the greatest respect, I urge upon the Prime Minister that whatever may be the ultimate outcome, it is not advisable to press this matter at this time. I am quite prepared to assume that the Prime Minister is just as anxious to promote harmony as myself- probably more so, because he occupies a more responsible position; but I think I can appeal to his judgment and to that of the committee, that it is not wise to press this matter forward without giving the local government an opportunity to present its views in a concise and considered form. In doing that, I think that time will not be lost, but rather gained, and the Prime Minister will be enunciating, even more distinctly than he did on the previous occasion, his adhesion to the principle of provincial rights.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think my hon. friend and I are very far apart, but he misapplies what I stated the other day. I said then, and I repeat to-day, that the only difficulty I see in this matter is on the question of expropriation. On that question I feel very strongly. When this matter was before the Private Bills Committee, I understand that the Ontario government was represented there, and that its representative informed the committee that the whole objection of that govern-

ment was to the expropriation clause. I do not understand that they questioned the jurisdiction of this parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have been informed by members of the provincial government that while they referred to the expropriation clause as an illustration, they had strong objection to our dealing with the matter at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: The question of jurisdiction is a question on which we have pronounced already. The Minister of Justice is of opinion that we have jurisdic-' tion.


Mr. BRISTOL.: Does the Minister of Justice contend that the parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know just what he said, as I have not his remarks at hand; but I have no hesitation for my part in saying that if we had concurrent jurisdiction, in all international matters the parliament of Canada should have paramount jurisdiction. The matter of jurisdiction we have settled, rightly or wrongly; we think rightly. Then the whole argument is on the question of expropriation.


Haughton Lennox: My right hon. friend does me the compliment of saying that we are not very far apart, but I think we are, on one point. On the question of expropriation the right hon. gentleman took strong ground. That is one important feature of the matter; but there has been put forward by the Ontario government a feature which is even of greater importance, and which touches a more vital principle; that is, that the province has the right to legislate on this matter, and has a formulated policy upon it. It was upon that branch of the question that I undertook particularly to address myself to the right hon. gentleman, and to his statement, in effect, that as regards these water-powers the Ontario legislature has adopted a policy which this government is prepared to respect. The Ontario government says: We want to conserve the rights of the province for the people, and therefore we have adopted a certain policy as to water-powers by which we hope to create a great source of revenue for the people and incidentally develop great industries for the province. The right hon. gentleman the other day put it forward as the paramount consideration that we should respect the policy of the Ontario government on this matter; and on that point we have more reason to stay our hand to-day than we had on the 19th of April, because the Bill has been modified since that time, and it was only on Saturday that the modifications were placed before the Ontario government. The Ontario government intimate to my hon. friend from Peel that they want to have a say in this matter. Are we going to proceed in their absence not only to ignore their policy and to deprive the province of its rights, but to refuse even to grant them the courtesy of a hearing through their representative? I have every faith that my right hon. friend will see the expediency of allowing this matter to stand, and of allowing the government of Ontario to present their views before the House.


Richard Blain: I wish to point out that the gentlemen who are asking for this legislation are chiefly from the United States-* Thomas Sturgis, of the city of New York, and J. C. Hunter, of the city of Duluth.


James Conmee: Read all the names. That is only two out of five.


Richard Blain: I am quite aware that there are associated with these gentlemen some very prominent gentlemen from the west, not in the province of Ontario but in the province of Manitoba. I am not undervaluing these gentlemen, but I am pointing out that the chief promoters are gentlemen from the United States who have sharp eyes on the development of power in the province of Ontario. These gentlemen would not be here at all, neither would my hon. friend be promoting this Bill if the province of Ontario had not a clearly defined policy on this question. They were quite aware that they could not obtain all these large powers from the Ontario government, because that government has distinctly stated that none of these powers shall be given away, either to friend or foe, in the province or in any part of Canada or the United States. It regards these rights and privileges as matters of great value which should be retained for the people. Look at the powers asked for by this company:
(d) acquire, develop, improve, maintain and operate water-powers, use, supply and sell water-power for any purpose, by any means of application, generate, by means of waterpower or otherwise, electricity, heat, light and any other form of energy, and transmit the same by any means to, and supply and sell the same for use in any manner at, any place in Canada and the United States;
(b)	construct, maintain and operate all necessary works, dams, wing dams, canals, intakes, tail-races, channels, conduits, tunnels transmission lines, structures, buildings, machinery, plant, appliances, instruments and devices, and erect and maintain poles and towers, and lay and maintain pipes, cables, wires or other conductors, and connect them with similar lines in other provinces and in the United States;
(c)	manufacture, buy, sell and deal in wood, pulp, paper and articles made therefrom, machinery, engines, motors, electrical apparatus and supplies, and engage in a general manufacturing business.

You cannot conceive of anything that these gentlemen do not wish to do. These are all provincial matters, and I do not agree with the Prime Minister when he says that if both this parliament and the provincial legislature have concurrent power to grant legislation of this kind, there is no difference between this side of the House and that side. I may say for myself that there is a difference, for I think that when both legislatures have this power, the provincial legislature should have the exclusive jurisdiction oyer provincial matters.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman is laying stress on the policy of the Ontario government, but he has not told the House what that policy is.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for South Toronto explained it.


James Conmee: I think I know the policy of the Ontario government as well as most men, and there is no such policy as has been presented to this House. The Ontario government is giving charter after charter to companies to develop water-powers. When the representative of the Ontario government was before the Private Bills Committee at the time this Bill was under consideration, and was asked by one of the members if he claimed that there was the same right in the province as to a boundary water and a stream wholly within the province, his reply was that in the case of a boundary stream the rights of the province were not necessarily ousted, but there was a difference between the Nipigon river and the Pigeon river. When he was asked by myself if the land had long previously passed from the Crown, and if the riparian rights of the river were vested in a private owner, would the provincial policy be in the same position, he said that of couse that would make a difference, but he had no evidence that that was the case. Now, I think this committee has evidence that that is the case.
I have refrained all along from criticising or discussing the policy of the Ontario government; but if hon. gentlemen want to draw me into a discussion of the administration of the Ontario government, I do not shrink from the task.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Go on.


James Conmee: I am not going further just now in that direction. My hon. friend laboured to show that there was something in the statement made by the right hon. leader of the House which indicated that the Bill in its present form conflicted with the policy of the Ontario government. That is perhaps correct; I am not going to contravene it just now. The Tight hon. leader of the House was perfectly justified in taking the view he did; but what I ask is, even if that view be held with regard to the Nipigon river, there is no question Of pro-Mr. BLAIN.
vincial rights involved in the Nipigon river. /The Privy Council has held that section 92, now section 5, of the Navigable Water Protection Act, was within the jurisdiction of this parliament. Our courts have held that this parliament, and this parliament alone, has the right to deal with navigable waters. The leader of the House himself, when this Bill was at its second reading, held that the legislature had not the right to create a company to exercise the powers asked by this Bill, much less to give the power to deal with works proposed. Let me point out that this question is entirely in the hands of the government,, and that we on this side have confidence in the government. Section 18 provides that nothing can be done until the plans are approved of by the Governor in Council. What is the proceeding, supposing this Bill passes with powers of expropriation as to Pigeon river? Some lawyers tell me there are no powers of expropriation in this Bill, others tell me there are.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Subsection (d) of section 8 gives ample powers of expropriation.


James Conmee: I will take the hon. gentleman's word for it, I am glad to be able to agree with him for once. What I say is this, that under section 18 the procedure is defined. This company must get its plans approved of by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and before it does that it must get them ratified by the Governor in Council. It must sub-' mit a book of reference showing who the owners are, and whose rights are affected, without which no ratification will take place, either by the Governor in Council or by the Board of Railway Commissioners. If, at that stage of the proceeding, it is shown that the province of Ontario has interests that are being interfered with in any undue sense, it is entirely in the power of the government of the day to refuse to ratify the plans.


Richard Blain: Is that the time to contest it? Rather would not this be the time to contest it?


James Conmee: No hon. gentleman on that side of the House has given one tittle of evidence, or quoted any judgment of the courts from which a conclusion can be drawn to support their contention; on the contrary, evidence that should not be disputed, evidence that is palpable, has been produced to show that there can be no possible contention that there are any provincial interests or provincial rights involved.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I will accept the hon. gentleman's challenge at once. But first I want to address myself to the Prime Minister in Tegard to this question of jurisdiction; I want to emphasize what I said on

Friday night about the difference between having jurisdiction and the wisdom of exercising it. The Minister of Justice says that we would have power-power to do a wrong, I daresay, in this matter. But the question of power rightly exercised and the question of jurisdiction, are entirely different things, they are entirely opposite, so far as regards the expediency of our dealing -with this matter. The Prime Minister says that if the objection as to expropriation were removed, where would be the reason for not dealing -with this Bill? The reason is that we are dealing with a Bill with which we have no business to deal. We are not the judges of what should be the policy of those who are rightly concerned in exercising that policy. We cannot say here what we would do if we were in the provincial legislature, we do not look at this matter with the same responsibility to the people, and therefore we do not have the same rights that the legislature would have. Now my hon. friend who is supporting this Bill just let the cat out of the bag by telling us that he differs from the policy of the provincial government in regard to these matters. That of itself ought to be a reason why we should not interfere with the policy of the provincial government.


James Conmee: I did not put it in that way; what I said was that the Ontario government had no such policy as the hon. gentleman represented, and that I had refused to criticise them on that ground.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman is talking about a subsequent statement he made. Prior to the statement he has just repeated, he challenged us that if we wanted to discuss the propriety of the policy of the Ontario government in this matter he was prepared to show that it was not a good policy.


James Conmee: I did not say that.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well, to that effect, that the policy of the Ontario government was not a good policy, which caused me to interrupt him and to say: Is that not why you are here? It must be manifest that the promoters of this Bill are here because they cannot get what they are asking for from the provincial government; that must he patent to everybody who is not a mere child. They would not be here after this legislation if they were satisfied to take what the Ontario government would give them, and I think that is confirmed by what the hon. gentleman has said. Now as to the exercise of this jurisdiction. It is contended apparently, not only by hon. gentlemen supporting this Bill, but I fancy by the Prime Minister, that if this is a navigable stream no power but the Dominion government has control of that stream
or any operations upon it for navigation. That Is true, I think; and here comes an answer to the challence of the hon. gentleman that we could quote no authority to show that the province had any rights in a stream that was navigable. Let me give the hon. gentleman a couple of authorities that he can find in Cartwright's Cases on the British North America Act. Let him go to the library and look up volume 2, page 542, in the case of MacMillan versus Southwest Boom Company, where the decision is in these words:
Subsection 10, of section 91, of the British North America Act gives the right merely to prescribe rules and regulations for vessels navigating the waters of the Dominion, and not as excluding for all purposes provincial jurisdiction over navigable waters.


James Conmee: Does the hon. gentleman seriously wish to assert that I have set up any contention of that kind? My argument was that the Ontario legislature has not the power to deal with the question embodied in this Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Now, the question embodied in this Bill, so far as jurisdiction goes, is whether the Ontario government has power to deal with this stream, it being admitted to be a navigable stream.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not the point.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think that is the point. If it is a navigable stream, this government has supreme jurisdiction in reference to navigation. But this case I have just quoted shows that section 91 of the British North America Act does not transfer a river to the Dominion jurisdiction merely because it is navigable, but only gives the right to prescribe rules and regulations for vessels navigating the waters of the Dominion.


Wilfrid Laurier: In my judgment the paramount consideration in this matter is not whether the Pigeon river is navigable-I do not know whether it is or not-but the paramount consideration is that it is an international stream.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before coming to that, I will give another authority to my hon. friend so that he may see there is evidence, and that he need not challenge anybody hereafter to produce it. In the case of the Central Vermont Railway vs. St. Johns, 4 Cartwright, page 331, it is held:
The control over navigation conferred on the Dominion parliament by the British North America Act does not prevent the provincial legislature from exercising municipal and police control on navigable waters.
The principle is the same; there is a certain amount of control and interest vested in the province in regard to any stream

within the province, that is not required to be exercised in regard to the protection of it for navigation purposes. Let us be clear on this point. My hon. friend, or the promoters of this Bill, are not asking for anything that interferes with navigation, that is to say, in regard to the jurisdiction that this government possesses. He is not chartering a line of ships, or wanting to build wharfs or anything else affecting navigation and trade and commerce, things which are meant to be covered by the British North America Act. But he is giving a commercial company power to produce goods, to sell, to produce commodities, to make profits out of them, which he has a right to do, a commendable right to do, or his promoters have, if they go to the proper place for the power. Now it is not necessary for any one to have a Dominion charter to manufacture anything in this country and sell it in another country; it is no more necessary for him to have a Dominion charter to manufacture and sell one thing in this country than another.
The Canadian Niagara Power Company is doing business on the Niagara river today under provincial jurisdiction alone. It came to this parliament and asked for a charter but it finally withdrew the application when it found Dominion government legislation was not necessary. It did not want rights that the Ontario government would not give it and it is carrying on practically the same business as my hon. friend's incorporators want to carry on under the powers of this parliament. It is, I fancy, the largest concern there is in this line of business. It is operating solely under provincial charter, upon a navigable river and iipon an international boundary -not navigable at the point where it is operating, but certainly international, and when the right hon. prime minister raises the point as to this river being navigable and international, both are covered by the case of the Niagara river. No one can say that the Niagara river is not an international boundary. This company is to-day doing the very kind of business on a very large scale under a provincial charter that the hon. gentleman's incorporators ask us to permit them to do by a Dominion charter. There is no necessity of this charter for the purpose of tloing anything over which the Dominion has control, that is over navigation. I repeat that if this charter were being asked for in regard to marine matters, in regard to vessels, shipping or wharfs, or anything having to do with navigation, there might be some reason for saying that we should grant it. But this matter has nothing to do with navigation and therefore our powers in regard to navigation cannot be exercised. Even as the Prime Minister says, if this is an international stream, all they ask to do can be done under a provincial charter. They can manufacture their goods and export them Mr. LANCASTER.
the same as the Canadian Niagara Power Company is doing to-day. They are subject to no Dominion law but one and that is in regard to the exportation of power. They can manufacture it under a provincial charter just the same as any other man can manufacture clothing, or axes, or anything else that he has a charter from the provincial government to manufacture and he does not need to come to the Dominion. There seems to me to be no possible ground left for argument that there is any need to come to this parliament for a charter at all and, holding that view, I think that we ought not to pass even what we think is a harmless part of this Bill. I cannot see how we make it any better by passing clauses which we think do not do much harm. We are not the judges as to whether they do or do not. It is a question for the province as a matter of policy and of knowledge because they must be the best judges of their own affairs. In dealing with provincial assets, with provincial rights, with revenue from royalties and from other assets, the right of manufacturing electricity from water-power, which is certainly a valuable privilege each province has the right to decide those questions for itself and when we are asked to deal with them at all we ought to refuse to do so and not pass such a Bill as this on the simple asertion that it would appear that the clause is harmless.	.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: The hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Con-mee) seems to be of the opinion that the proprietary interest in the Canadian side of the Pigeon river lies within the jurisdiction of the province. I would like to know if that is his opinion.


James Conmee: My answer to that would be that it belongs at present to the riparian owners of the land along the shore and that the government parted with any interest they ever had in 1856.


William Sora Middlebro: If the contention of the hon. gentleman is right then these riparian owners could prevent navigation and shipping. If the proprietary interest in the waters belongs to the riparian owners they might 'prevent navigation and shipping in any form.


James Conmee: I would answer that question by saying ' no,' that the riparian owners have, not control over the waters. I am advised that there is no such thing as ownership in waters. The Privy Council, in a decision which has been read in this debate, decided that the parliament of Canada alone has the legislative jurisdiction over not only boundary streams but over navigable streams. I will read a sentence here from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada on that point. This was the case of the Queddy River Driving and

Boom Company vs. Davidson, 1883, 3 Cartwright, page 243. Mr. Justice Strong in that case, at page 257 of the law reports, used this language:
No one can deny that by subsection 10 of section 91 of the British North America Act, exclusive power to legislate respecting navigation is conferred on the parliament of Canada, and as little is it open to any one to dispute that this power respecting navigation includes the exclusive right to legislate so as to authorize an obstruction in a navigable public river.


William Sora Middlebro: I thought that the hon. gentleman had come to a wrong conclusion. The hon. gentleman has apparently come to the conclusion, that, because the British North America Act gave the Dominion parliament certain power with respect to navigation and shipping, therefore it gave them a proprietary interest in the waters of the river. The reverse is held to be the case. The law, as I understand it, is that unless you can show a proprietary interest in rivers and waters which have been transferred from the ownership of the provincial legislature to that of the Dominion legislature by virtue of the British North America Act, the proprietary rights which the province formerly enjoyed still remain vested in the province, and that the only right that the Dominion government can assume is in respect of navigation and shipping. It has been held in many cases that under the words ' navigation and shipping ' the Dominion does not acquire a proprietary interest in waters but has simply the right to regulate navigation and shipping in those waters. I would point to the case referred to by my hon. friend from Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) of the Vermont Central Railway vs. the town of St. Johns. In that case the town of St. Johns had passed a by-law extending its corporation limits to the centre of the Richelieu river. Across the Richelieu river there had been erected a bridge and the town claimed the right to assess one half of the bridge because they say it lay within the corporation of St. Johns. They did assess it and the company appealed against the assessment on the ground that it was a navigable river and also upon the ground that the corporation had no right to make that assessment. But the court upheld the contention of the town and held that the town was the owner of the river bed to the centre of the river. The Chief Justice in that case summed up as follows, and I would like my hon. friend to follow this:
Navigation and shipping are words used by the British North America Act. That does not mean the river at all. The river itself belongs to the local Crown domain.
That seems to put it quite clearly, that the river itself belongs to the local Crown
domain. How do we apply that to the present case? That means that one half of the bed of the river belongs to the local Crown domain, the local Crown domain is the province of Ontario, and once you give this company proprietary ot expropriation rights you are interfering with the rights of the province in one half of that river.


Alfred Henry Clarke: If my hon. friend is right in saying that was granted by the Crown in 1856, how could it belong to the province in 1856?


William Sora Middlebro: According to this decision the river itself belongs to the local Crown domain and my hon. friend says a private person can have no proprietary rights in water. That is quite true. Therefore, if private parties can have no proprietary rights in water it still remains that the river itself belongs to the local Crown domain under the decision I have referred to.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Cannot the Crown grant it?


William Sora Middlebro: But even if the right is granted against the province you could not take half of this river.


Alfred Henry Clarke: But if the Crown granted it.


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend said the Crown had no right to grant what the individual had no right to own, a proprietary interest in a river.


James Conmee: Does the hon. member attribute that language to me?


William Sora Middlebro: I have to accept my hon. friend's explanation but I understood him to say that.


James Conmee: I never even thought oE such an argument as that.


William Sora Middlebro: I recollect quite distinctly that the other day the hon gentleman argued that because the river was a navigable river, authority over it was exclusively within the Dominion jurisdiction.


James Conmee: I argued that.


William Sora Middlebro: Now he says that the river at the point where he wishes to exercise proprietary rights, is bounded on each side by rocky cliffs and therefore cannot be navigable. I thus fail to see how he can give this parliament jurisdiction because it is a navigable river.


James Conmee: The parliament of Canada in 1856 and 1857 laid out a canal and the levels, profiles, plans and everything in connection with building locks right along this very river are of record in the department here, so it is a navigable river in every sense.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the hon. gentleman raise any claim to jurisdiction of this parliament because of the Pigeon river being a navigable river?


James Conmee: My contention all along has been that this parliament, and _ this parliament alone, has legislative jurisdiction over boundary rivers, and in my judgment over navigable rivers. That has been my argument and I do not recede from it at all.


William Sora Middlebro: I do not think my hon. friend's contention is in line with the contention of the first minister, who a few minutes ago said he did not place any reliance upon this parliament having jurisdiction because it was a navigable river, he based his contention on its being an international river. With respect to the Pigeon river being an international river I fail to see yet, subject to conversion hereafter, why the mere fact that the Pigeon riveT is an international river gives this parliament exclusive jurisdiction. I would ask the hon. gentleman opposite if the province of Ontario could not give the promoter of this Bill just as great rights to build his plant to the boundary line between this country and the United States as this parliament can?


James Conmee: No.


William Sora Middlebro: It has been done in other cases?


James Conmee: No.


William Sora Middlebro: Under tne legislation of the province of Ontario my hon. friend could build his lines right to the boundary line, but if he wanted to go one inch further he would have to go to the government [DOT]f a foreign country to obtain greater powers, just as if legislation was passed by this parliament, and he would then later come before this parliament. In order to give this parliament jurisdiction we have to insert the words 'for the general advantage of Canada,' and if that clause had been retained this parliament would have had jurisdiction; but I am glad to say that the Minister of Justice has seen fit to declare that the work is not for the general benefit of Canada, and not being for the general benefit of Canada we have the right to assume that the company is local in its undertaking. I do not think any hon. gentleman can undertake to say it is not local, and for this reason it cannot gain by authority of this parliament what the province of Ontario can not give it. I grant further that if the company were seeking power to carry lines from one province into another this parliament would have jurisdiction, because- we have the right of jurisdiction to legislate and give Mr. CONMEE.
power to a company to build lines into an adjoining province, but not to go beyond the international boundary. This company is confined exclusively to the province of Ontario, and its works not being declared for the general advantage of Canada why not relegate it entirely to the province of Ontario, to which they beong?
Leaving the question of jurisdiction, we have in Ontario a hydro-electric commission inaugurated for the very purpose of developing such natural resources as are proposed to be given to this company, and can any hon. gentleman say that the province of Ontario will not administer these assets more in the interests of Ontario than would the promoters and members of this company. I take the broad ground that it is beyond doubt more advantageous to the people of Ontario to have the hydroelectric commission administer these water-powers. I fail to see why we should interfere in this matter at all. When the Bill first came up owing to the strenuous objections of members on this side of the House some of the objectionable features were removed, but I contend that we should now leave the matter entirely in the hands of the local legislature and let them deal with it in accordance with their policy.


Mr. MAGRATH.: I have a good deal of sympathy for the promoter of this Bill in his effort to hold up his end against legal men on this side. I would ask the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if the Canadian section of the International Waterways Commission have been asked to pass upon this measure?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware that they have.


James Conmee: The Bill provides that before anything is done the plans must be ratified by the Waterways Commission.


Charles Alexander Magrath: We have the Waterways Commission which was called into existence by an Act of the Congress of the United States of June 13, 1902, which calls upon Canada to join in the appointment of a joint commissioner to deal with the waters which discharge into the Atlantic ocean by the St. Lawrence river. The waters dealt with in this Bill are covered by that Act of Congress. That commission has reported to the government from time to time as to the method of dealing with international waters. I find in a report addressed to the Minister of Public Works in 1906 this statement:
Diversions of international waters elsewhere than at Niagara river or the Niagara peninsula should only be permitted;
(a)	For domestic purposes and for the service of locks in navigation canals:
(b)	Temporary diversions, where the water taken is returned again, only on the recommendation of the joint commission.

Now that commission likewise in a report to the Minister of Public Works in March, 1908, used this language when dealing with the Niagara Falls situation:
While we think it should be a condition of the charters of all companies hereafter incorporated in Canada that the power generated should be distributed wholly in this country-
There is no misunderstanding that language. We are endeavouring in this Bill to dispose of some waters that belong to somebody. Some gentlemen claim that they belong to the province of Ontario; others claim that they should be dealt with by this House. Assuming that they should be dealt with by this government, I would like to know if there is any department of our government engaged in their administration. They are the most valuable asset we possess. They will last as long as the country lasts; they will furnish us with our power, light and heat in the future. These water-powers must have some value. To some minds they have a very great value; but it appears to me that the parliament of Canada, not only at present, but in the past, has been disposing too freely of the valuable assets of this country. As long as I have a seat in this House I am going to oppose that in every possible way. The waters of this country belong to the people of this country, and they should be conserved for the benefit of the people; and the waters which are within the boundaries of the province of Ontario should be handled by that province. For these reasons I am determinedly opposed to any Bill of this kind. The purpose of this company is to export this power. The government has an opinion from one of their own officials that that should not be done, and in view of that fact, why should the time of parliament be taken up in discussing this matter? The utmost ignorance exists with regard to the extent of this wateT-power, and I am decidedly opposed to it being handed over to a private company.
At one o'clock committee adjourned.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Angus Claude Macdonell: We all agree in the Prime Minister's statement that a great deal of time has been taken up with the discussion of this Bill and that it should be disposed of as soon as possible, but the loss of time is the fault not of the committee but of the promoter of the Bill. The Prime Minister contended that because the Pigeon river is an international stream, its waters flowing between Canada and the state of Minnesota, this parliament is, ipso facto, given jurisdiction over it. I do not accede to that statement as there is no authority for such a proposition in either the British North America Act or any judicial decision
of which I am awaTe. I take the view that if these are provincial wateTs, as I believe they are, the Dominion has no greater rights of an international nature than the provinces would have, that is that the British authority on this side of the line cannot invade the territorial waters or the jurisdiction of the state of Minnesota, and that the Crown in Tight of the province of On; tario is the proper tribunal to deal with these questions, if it is necessary to have dealings with the United States. The Canadian right in that respect is vested in the province just as it was before confederation, and by virtue of section 109 of the British North America Act the province is continued in its ownership of the land over which the water flows. It seems folly to say that this parliament has the right to grant the powers asked for by this Bill when it is evident upon the face of the legislation that the regulation of all such matters, the regulation of municipal and police matters and the enforcement of law, all fall within the provincial domain. I ask the right hon. gentleman to consider this matter in the same way. I again call his attention to the conditon on the Niagara river where we have the pioneer company, the Canadian Niagara Power Company, originally getting a charter in 1892 from the province of Ontario and operating under that charter ever since.


James Conmee: I am informed on very good authority that that company has come here and obtained a charter since then.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think the hon. gentleman is mistaken.


James Conmee: The evidence will show it has done that.


Angus Claude Macdonell: There is no such legislation to be found in the statutes of Canada. The Canadian Electrical Development Company and the Ontario Company, which are the only other two companies operating on the Niagara river, went first to the Ontario government and made a bargain with that province before coming here and that is what we ask these promoters to do, to make their bargain with the province of Ontario and then come here as the other companies came to have their bargains ratified and incorporated in our statutes, then if any difference arises between the parties to the bargain, the province of Ontario and the company, the matter can come before a more or less independent tribunal, the parliament of Canada. The elimination of the Nipigon river modifies the intensity of the opposition to this Bill but in its relation to the Pigeon river it is still objectionable.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman says that all other companies have acquired agreements from the province of Ontario before coming here. I have here the Act of

the Ontario and Erie Power Company, a company incorporated here, and there is not one word in that Act with regard to any agreement with the province.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That company is not in operation at all.


James Conmee: But its charter was granted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is not operating and never has operated.


James Conmee: And that charter has
been renewed twice. The hon. gentleman allowed it to be renewed this year and did not say a word against it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It does not contain the same clause as this.


James Conmee: The same clause exactly from the Railway Act and it gives a great deal wider powers. It gives the company power to take the waters of the Welland river and the Jordan river and to divert them through to Lake Ontario, to widen these rivers and take them out of their regular course. It also gives the company power to take the waters of Lake Erie and to divert them into Lake Ontario. There is no comparison between the scope of their Act and the one now before the House.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The Erie Bill passed this House some years ago but the company has never gone into operation. They propose to take water from a system of waters known as the Welland canal. The Welland river is part of the Welland canal waterway, which, as we all know, is a work not only within the jurisdiction of this parliament but constructed by this parliament and they had to come here to obtain power to use the waters of the Welland canal.


James Conmee: What about Lake Erie and the Jordan river?


Angus Claude Macdonell: The Jordan river is practically part of the Welland canal system too.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The canal is not only a Dominion work but a Dominion-owned work.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: Admitting for the sake of argument-and of course we do not admit it-that this parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to deal with this question and that the provinces have no jurisdiction whatever, should not this government have some policy in regard to this and similar assets? We ought to have a declaration of policy from the govenment. Is it their policy to alienate to private companies these important assets, suppose they do belong to the Dominion? I have heard a great deal about the policy of the Ontario Mr. CONMEE.
government in an opposite direction, and we ought to have some declaration with regard to the policy of this government. Is, it their policy to alienate in perpetuity valuable public assets to private companies?


Mr. BARR.: At this late stage of the session, when we are anxious to bring our work to a close, it is very unfortunate that this Bill should be brought up again. When the right hon. gentleman turned it down the otheT day, we thought we had heard the last of it for this session at least, but we have it popping up again like an irrepressible jack-in-the-box. The legal aspect of the question has been fully discussed, and I do not think it can be seriously pretended that this government has exclusive jurisdiction. Even if the British North America Act be strained to give it some jurisdiction, at least the Ontario government have rights in these water-powers within their own province, and ought to be left free to deal with them. We are told that the Bill passed the committee, but we must remember that it passed at a rather stormy meeting and contrary to the vote of the Ontario members, both Liberal and Conservative. It only passed by virtue of the vote of members from the other provinces who are not directly interested and who were drummed up for that purpose. I know that Ontario members on the Liberal side remained away and refused to vote for the Bill but did not like to appear and vote against it out of regard for my hon. friend the promoter of "the Bill (Mr. Conmee). I hope that no one imagines that we on this side oppose the measure because my hon. friend is the promoter. We would oppose it just as strongly if it were put forward by an hon. member on this side. We are opposing it on principle, because we believe it is of vital importance to the province of Ontario that that province should have control in this matter, and if necessary we are prepared to oppose it from day to day and thus prolong this session which we all desire to see brought to an end. I think the right hon. the Prime Minister has been ill advised in giving his consent to have this Bill brought up again. We must remember that the company in question is largely controlled by American citizens, who will no doubt, in the working out of the measure place the interest of their own country first. Let me remind the House that when the Niagara Power Company Bill was brought in a year ago, we took the precaution to provide that only the surplus power should be sold on the other side of the line, but no such precaution is taken in this measure, and the company may sell the greater part of its power in the United States. Under the circumstances, the Bill is a most dangerous one. The Ontario government have appointed an electric commis-

sion which has done good work in the province of Ontario, and that policy has been endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the free and independent electors of that province. If there is one Act more than another of the Ontario government which the people appreciate it is their reserving of these powers for the province. Under the circumstances, it would be a blunder and a crime against the province of Ontario if we should pass this Bill. This House ought not to put itself in a hostile attitude to any province. We ought to remember that our water-powers are the greatest assets which our provinces possess. They are the white coal of the country, to which we look to take the place of the ordinary coal when that is exhausted. Under the circumstances we ought to be very careful not to give a perpetual franchise which will take this power out of the province altogether. This is one of the greatest water-powers we have in that part of the country. Without going into the legal question, it seems to me that the province is better fitted to deal with this asset than is the Dominion parliament. Charters of this kind are usually given by the Ontario government; and if this session be delayed on account of this Bill, the responsibility must Test on this government.


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend who is promoting the Bill made two propositions a moment ago, and I think only two mistakes. One of his statements was that the Canadian Niagara Power Company, although refused a charter in the first instance, had come to this parliament again and obtained one. If that is the case it would have been very easy for the hon. gentleman to have proved his statement. But let me point out that when that company applied for a charter the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) opposed its application, and after having pointed out that he had done so at the instance of a number of influential Liberals and others in his own riding and elsewhere in the province of Ontario, he succeeded in getting a few weeks adjournment, and the Bill never came forward again. The company withdrew its application and so the matter ended as it should have done. That was one of the hon. gentleman's propositions during his last speech. But it did not apply prejudicially to the company, a company carrying on business effectively and successfully, and the largest business of any of the development companies that exist on the Niagara river, and so far as I know, they are experiencing no difficulty. The hon. gentleman also referred to the Ontario Power Company. I think he should have left the Ontario Power Company alone, because we have before us the report of the commission appointed by this government to look after our water-powers 170



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
and international streams. The commission is composed of Mr. Geo. C. Gibbins, Mr. Louis Coste, and Mr. Wm. J. Stewart. We have their supplemental report; and I would think that the members who support the government and the government would be prepared to abide in the main by the recommendations of their commission. They deal with this Ontario Power Company, and they point out how unfortunate it is that these three companies were incorporated and given such large powers before public attention had been directed to the importance of keeping these great sources of wealth in the control of the provinces. It is important that the government should pay some heed to the statements contained in this report, and I will take the liberty of referring to a few of them. Later on, if the government does not see fit to adhere to the proposition of the Prime Minister on the 19th of April last, and if he is disposed to recede from the position taken that evening, I shall have occasion to refer more at length to the contents of this report. In the meantime they say:
It is manifest that some arrangement must be arrived at between the two countries with regard to the regulation and use of the boundary waters, otherwise chaos will prevail. At Niagara, on each side of the river, charters had been granted under which water in unlimited quantities could have been taken at points further up the river. On our side it was sought to use the Chippewa river to drain the waters of Niagara into a new outlet-a canal to be built to a point near St. David's. Another Canadian charter sought to divert the waters of Lake Erie to a point near Jordan.
That is the Ontario Power Company.
On the New York side there was no limitation to the water which could be taken under several charters.
Now here is what these gentlemen say with reference to this matter:
All these proposed developments would affect, more or less seriously, the level of Lake Erie, and all are objectionable on that account, and wholly opposed to the principle adopted by the commission.
What is the government going to do about it? Are they going to let the recommendations of this committee go for nothing, ot are they going to abide by their recommendations? The committee say further:
The diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second would have a more serious effect upon the level of Lake Erie than the diversion from Lake Michigan, at Chicago, of a like amount. It would mean the reduction of the lake level by more than six inches.

[Stage Direction]
So we are not here to justify the Ontario Power Company, we are here to show that before the attention of the people had been called to this question, three power companies had been incorporated in reference to the Niagara river, and it is a most unfortunate thing that these three power companies were incorporated at that time. But as they are incorporated, it is for the government to see to it that no further companies are incorporated with a like result. In reference to another proposition that the hon. gentleman and some other hon. gentlemen, have repeated, let me show what this commission says, after speaking of international waters:
Neither company has any right of property, but only a right of user, in these flowing waters.
Further on they say:
It, perhaps, would have been wise if development had been limited to the generation of electricity for distribution in Canada.
That is the position I took the other evening, that is the position I take now, and that I intend to maintain, namely: That it is not in the interest of Canada or the Canadian people that we should transmit power to the United States to help build up American industries at the expense of our own development. If, by a proper protective tariff, as has been shown, and I called the right hon. gentleman's attention to it the other day, 134 large firms in the United States have been compelled to plant large industries in Canada, if that is in the interest of Canada, and undoubtedly it is, is it not in the interest of Canada, where we have this God-given power in the great rivers and water falls we possess, that we should keep that power within our own hands, and compel people who want to benefit by the natural resources of Canada to come into our territory, and build up our markets and our country by establishing industries within our own limits? Now they say it would have been wise if development had been limited to the generation of electricity for distribution in Canada, and add:
In that case w© would most likely have had only one corporation up to this time, and, moreover, would have had the Canadian market fully supplied.
Now I particularly desire to direct the attention of the Prime Minister to this position taken by this commission. At page 15 they say:
The control over one-half of the production would undoubtedly supply all the demands of our Canadian market for many years to come, and it would not be any great hardship ^upon the companies to compel them to jointly or severally build the necessary transmission lines to care for the same.
Haughton Lennox: The commission is here dealing with the three companies that had already been incorporated, and they are pointing out that although certain rights have been conceded to these companies, it is inadvisable that they should be allowed to other companies making application, or to this company now making application, the first since this report has been brought in. The commission had knowledge of the fact that my hon. friend had a Bill of this class, and they point out that it is not advisable to have any further companies incorporated in Canada. They say:
While we think it should be a condition of the charters of all companies hereafter incorporated in Canada that the power generated should be distributed wholly in this country, that principle cannot with fairness be applied to these corporations at Niagara Falls.
So the whole result of the argument of the commission is that we cannot apply the proper principle to the three companies who have already acquired vested rights in regard to the export of power, but that to all future companies we should apply the principle that no export shall be permitted to the United States.
It would be monstrous if all but 40,000 or 50,000 horse-power of the total 400,000 development should find a market in New York State. The public in western Ontario are thoroughly aroused against this threatened injustice.
I do not so much appeal to the right hon. first minister because naturally-and I do not say this offensively-I cannot get his ear to the same extent as can his loyal and faithful supporters. But, whilst I urge upon him most respectfully to take a broader view of this question I also protest against our acting in such a way as shall prevent any province from developing, for the benefit of its own people, the natural resources of that province.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to press my question upon the first minister. Admitting, for the sake of argument, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion, admitting, that the province has no power at all, is it wisdom on our part to alienate these water-powers to a company in perpetuity without providing for some compensation, or for the right to collect royalty, or without regulation of any kind except as provided in this Bill? What is the policy that should actuate us in dealing with these water-powers and other natural resources and in disposing of them to private companies?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have expressed more than once what the views of the government are on this matter and I am sorry if I have failed to make myself understood. As to the question of jurisdiction we claim that it is vested in this par-

liament. I have said again and again that 1 thought we had the power to deal with this Bill. The question which is in the mind of my hon. friend (Mr. S. Sharpe) is the question of the right of expropriation. Shall we allow this company to expropriate these water-powers or not? That is a matter which would not logically come up under this clause. I have stated to the promoter of the Bill that on this point I have an open mind and that I would not decide the matter one way or the other. Until we reach this point I do not think it is proper for me to offer any advice. I keep a perfectly open mind. The government have not formulated a policy upon this matter because we have had very little opportunity of dealing with such questions. It is admitted that in dealing with the Nipigon river, though a navigable stream, we should defer to the provincial government, but with regard to an international stream we certainly have the control in our own hands. Whether or not w'e should allow this company to take the power of expropriation is a matter as to which we should reserve our views until we come to the discussion of the question.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Mr. Chairman, the Bill before the committee has been discussed at very great length and I have no doubt that all that can be said on the subject has been said. The argument that- is of compelling force, to my mind, has, however, not been put as expressly as I would hope to put it. If I can succeed in presenting it I shall be very brief and I trust that I shall have the ear of those who are closely concerned with this measure. I fancy the Tight hon. first minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) misapprehends, in to a very great degree, the basis upon which the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) founds his claim to exclusive jurisdiction in this parliament. The Minister of Justice founded his claim upon an asseveration that this Bill embodies in its form an assertion of power to export the product that the company pronoses to manufacture; that is to say, that by virtue of the power embodied in the Bill to export power to other provinces and across the line, by virtue of that clause and that clause alone, this parliament has jurisdiction. If the first minister will look at the speech of the Minister of Justice he will find that it was on that ground that the Minister of Justice based his assertion and his conclusions that this parliament alone had jurisdiction. The Minister of Justice, in pressing that claim, admitted that if this company, promoted by the hon. member for Bainv River (Mr. Conmee), had gone to the provincial government of Ontario and had obtained a charter, leaving out 'entirely the clause which asks for power to export to other countries and other provinces, the company would, having obtained its 170*
charter, have, by virtue of what is called in the legal profession, the comity of nations, power to export to other provinces and other countries just the same as if the clause had been included. The position of the Minister of Justice then is that the inclusion of this clause in the Bill confers on us exclusive jurisdiction, but that if the clause were out and the Bill then went to the legislature of Ontario, which, in that event, would have the exclusive jurisdiction (because there is no such thing as concurrent jurisdiction), then the company would have the power which my hon. friend claims for it. Well, if that is so, if the argument of the Minister of Justice is right, the only reason for the inclusion in the Bill of this particular clause asking for power to export to other provinces and other countries is to confer upon this House exclusive jurisdiction. It is admitted that if that were not there those powers could be granted, aside entirely from what I might call the obiter dicta of the Minister of Justice in his remarks, by the Ontario legislature and they alone and the company would have all the powers they desired and could exercise them just the same as if this Bill had passed this House.
Now, the Minister of Justice, in opening his remarks, about two weeks ago, stated that in his opinion this work was not for the general advantage of Canada, and he said that in his opinion it was unwise and not right for this parliament to insert what was on its face incorrect, and consequently that he had advised the hon. member for Rainy River to leave that out. He deprecated the principle of importing into a Bill a fiction for the purpose of giving this parliament jurisdiction. I accept that principle in its entirety and I think all the members of this House will accept it as far as it goes. But, press it a litle farther and what is the effect of it? The hon. member for Rainy River brings exclusive jurisdiction into this parliament by includng in this Bill a clause asking for power to export to other countries and other provinces. Is not that a fiction? The Minister of Justice told us that we had no right, now that the Bill had passed the committee, to question the bona tides of the promoters of the Bill, to question the bona fides of their intention to export power to other countries and other provinces. I do not question their bona fides, but no matter what company comes here and asks for power it can, with equal bona fides, place in its Bill an application for power to export to other provinces and other countries. That can be put in with equal bona fides by all companies. Therefore, I say it amounts purely to a fiction. There is no necessity of giving any opinion whatever upon the admission of the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice and

the government are quite willing to lay down the principle that it is not right, that it is bad policy for this House to import one fiction into a Bill for the purpose of giving it jurisdiction, but that it is all right to import another. I, as one member of this House, would wish to exercise no jurisdiction that is based upon such a flimsy excuse as that. It would simply amount to this: that we, by virtue of a clause which any company in the world would be justified, in all good faith, in inserting in its Bill, could, in every case, assert to ourselves exclusive jurisdiction and make that, not a reason because it would not be a reason, but simply an excuse for passing such Bill in this House.


James Conmee: How does the hon. member deal with the fact of the development being upon an international stream and that the works must extend from side to side of the river so that the water must be affected on the American as well as on the Canadian side.


Arthur Meighen: I quite appreciate the point raised by my hon. friend, and I appreciate also his anxiety to get away from the point I am now discussing. The Minister of Justice did mention that, but at present I am simply arguing that the basis laid down by the Minister of Justice as bringing into this House the exclusive jurisdiction was not a basis on which it was within the domain of this House to act.


James Conmee: Where do you find that in 'Hansard ?'


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has experience in questioning members on this side of the House as to what appears in 'Hansard' but he seems not to have profited by the experience. On page 4592 'Hansard,' April 19, the Minister of Justice stated:
I have not made my meaning clear to my hon. friend if he thinks my remarks do not apply to the Nipigon river. This Bill proposes, as I have pointed out, to incorporate a company to manufacture electric energy by water-power on the Pigeon river and on the Nipigon river, and the electric energy so manufactured, no matter whether on' the Nipigon or on the Pigeon, this Bill proposes that the company shall have the power to transmit and sell for use at any place in the united States. There is no distinction, on the face of the Bill, between the power to be manufactured by the water of Pigeon river and that which is to be manufactured by the water of the Nipigon river. I speak without knowledge but my supposition is that the company do not intend to distinguish at all, m their operation, between the power manufactured at the one place and that manufactured at the other. The Nipigon is some 60 miles to the eastward of the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William, the Pigeon river is some 40 or 50 miles on the other side.


Arthur Meighen: To abbreviate, the Minister of Justice goes on to argue that there is no distinction between one river and the other; basing his argument on the fact that the power to export is included, and, at page 4593 'Hansard,' in answer to a question by the member for West Algoma, the Minister of Justice said:
The hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) asks me if in my opinion the fact that this Bill empowers the company to sell its products beyond the boundaries of the province gives this parliament exclusive jurisdiction over it. If I am to answer that question exactly as it is put, I would say yes. At the same time it is a legal question by no means free from doubt and one which has been recently under consideration.
He goes on to argue that it will likely not be until it comes before the Privy Council in England that that question will be finally decided, although he gave his opinion without qualification to this House. It is true, as the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) has said and is just about to say again, that on the same page of 'Hansard' the Minister of Justice does state that because the Pigeon river is an international stream this House has exclusive jurisdiction.


James Conmee: Does my hon. friend not see-without using any offensive language- that his argument is unfair. He is picking out from the remarks of the Minister of Justice a reply to a question put by the member for West Algoma with regard to the export of power. That is only incidental to the argument of the Minister of Justice and not a part of it.


Arthur Meighen: It is the whole basis of his argument, and that is why the question was put by the member for West Algoma. In the body of his argument the Minister of Justice did state that the fact that the Pigeon river was an international stream gave exclusive jurisdiction to this parliament, but the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) will also see that in the body of that argument the Minister of Justice goes into no details. He gives nothing on which he bases that conclusion whereas in the other case he built up the entire construction of the speech he made to this House and goes into the most explicit details. But, supposing that we were to grant that this is an international stream and that consequently for certain purposes exclusive jurisdiction is in this parliament, will the Minister of Justice, or will any lawyer on the other side of the House deny that the province of Ontario would have power to incorporate a company that would build a dam, at least to the international boundary in the middle of the stream. Certainly, Ontario would have that power. Has this parliament of Canada any further power? Has this parliament of Canada any power to incorporate a company to build past the middle of

the stream? Surely not. Surely there is jurisdiction in the province of Ontario in so far as the purposes of a purely local and commercial undertaking are concerned to go just as far as the Dominion of Canada in that respect. Now then, to get to the kernel of the contention of the hon. gentleman-if there is any kernel to his contention-if after this company has obtained from the province of Ontario power to build to the middle of the stream; after they have obtained from the adjoining states to the south power to build to the same point from the American boundary, then, if any power to connect so as to utilize the two together be necessary to come from this House, which I very much doubt, then doubtless this company can come to this House and get that power. In that way we will grant all the power that it is necessary for us to grant and we will not interfere with the policy of the Ontario or any other province. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) only wants to come to this House for power to connect, and that is all he can come to this House for without interfering with provincial rights; if he wants to come to this House for such legislation then probably he would succeed because the principle of provincial rights would be in no way impaired thereby. The company he wishes power for would get at least all the power that the province of Ontario under their well endorsed policy could give them and that is all this company has any right to have or that this parliament has any right to give them. I have said as much as I intend to say on that point. I have not perhaps gone into this question quite as fully as my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) but sometimes by simply listening to his argument and by simply watching the very many beautiful manceuverings of my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) one can come to a conclusion perhaps more quickly and just as sound as he could by going into the authorities for himself.


Mr. CARVELL.: I have listened to this argument and have read pretty carefully the debate which took place on the 19th of April, and I am forced to the conclusion that this seems to be a dispute between the supporters of the Ontario government on the one side and the hon. member for Rainy River on the other. But there are other members in this House who are_compelled to vote upon this question and we are therefore justified in giving our reasons for our belief. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) has not done himself justice this afternoon, and I want to say that he is usually very fair and very logical in his arguments. He cited from the speech of the Minister of Justice, but he only cited from that speech the remarks in reference to the exportation of electricity. I do not think that was fair, because had he gone to the
bottom of the same page he would have found the reason upon which the Minister of Justice had based his conclusion and which was this same subsection 10 of section 92 of the British North America Act, which contains certain exceptions as to the authority of the local legislatures, one of which exceptions is:
Local works and undertakings, other than such as are of the following classes:-
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
The Minister of Justice went on to explain this point, and in his judgment it came within the exceptions of subsection 10 of section 92, because it was a work extending beyond the limits of the province of Ontario, and therefore the jurisdiction 'could only be in this parliament. I will read his words:	,
At all events that is the proposition on the face of the Bill, and the observations I have made apply as much to the water-power at Nipigon as to that on the Pigeon river. I cannot understand how water-power could be utilized on the Pigeon river otherwise than by the construction of a dam across that river, which would have one end necessarily on American soil, and this parliament alone would have the power to incorporate a company for that purpose.
Had my hon. friend quoted that portion-


Arthur Meighen: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I stated clearly that the minister had made that statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, I will leave the House to judge whether the hon. member read that as he started to do, or whether after he was challenged he made a statement somewhat along those lines. However, that is a small matter, the question is to get at the facts. We are told that the Pigeon river is about 300 feet across, and that there is a water-fall at that point; so that in order to develop power it would be necessary to erect a dam across the river. I cannot make the argument any stronger than the Minister of Justice made it. In view of the fact that to develop a waterpower it would be necessary to build a dam across the river, it is certain that the legislature of Ontario has no jurisdiction and that this parliament alone has jurisdiction. I am content to take the ground taken by the right hon. first minister, that when we are dealing with international rivers, this parliament should have jurisdiction and it should not be relegated to any provincial legislature. I believe the underlying principle of our constitution is that certain rights are given to the provinces and the residue remains with the federal govern-

ment; that is the distinction between our constitution and that of the United States.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman contend that this parliament can create a company to build a dam all the way, across a navigable river?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly not; but if this work can only be carried on by building a dam across the Pigeon river, it comes under subsection 10 of section 92, under which this parliament only has jurisdiction.


Arthur Meighen: Just to connect the two ends.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend tries to get around that, because, if I understand his argument, it is that the incorporators' should get power from the province of Ontario to build across the Ontario half of the river, and then get power from the State of Minnesota to build the other half, and then they would have to come here to get that ratified. He admits by his argument that the final jurisdiction over this work rests in this parliament. Then our friends say that we are interfering with the avowed policy of the province of Ontario. Personally I do not believe in public ownership. If the people of Ontario want their water-powers managed and controlled by the province, I have no quarrel with them; but I would like to know if the followers of the Ontario government go so far as to contend that all water-powers in the province, whether owned by the province or by private individuals, should he controlled and operated by the province. I cannot conceive that that is the policy of the Ontario government, otherwise they "would be taking away vested rights that must have existed for a hundred) years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Those powers must he under some parliamentary jurisdiction. What other than the province?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I imagine that there are hundreds of water-powers in the province of Ontario which are being managed without a charter from anybody. The owners got the powers because they owned the land on which those powers are situated.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the province could confiscate them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend say that the Ontario government has adopted as part of its policy the right to confiscate private property?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, I do not say that they ought to confiscate it, but I say they have power to confiscate it if they chose to possess it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I admit that they have power to confiscate anybody's private property, but is that their policy?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says no, but they have done it.


Richard Blain: When the Whitney government came into power, they found that a great many of these provincial rights had been given to private individuals, and they decided that they would reverse the policy of my hon. friend's party, and that in the future all these rights should be retained by the government for the people.


James Conmee: That policy was in vogue ten years before the Whitney government! came into power.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am discussing whether it is the policy of the Ontario government, I will not say to confiscate, which is a harsh term, but to expropriate or acquire the private property of persons who happen to own water-powers. I am not discussing what the Ontario government did in the past; I am discussing what is their policy at the present time. The hon. member for Lincoln says that he understands that it is not their policy to confiscate or' expropriate the property of private parties. Then I understand that the whole burden of this discussion so far goes by the board, because it was based on the statement that there is a property here that belongs to the province of Ontario, and that this parliament ought not to interfere and take from the province a right which it enjoys. If we can believe the statements given by the hon. member and the telegrams read here this morning, we must conclude that the title to the six square miles, including this water-fall now under discussion, was granted in 1856 by a patent which extended down to the water's edge.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Will the hon. gentleman state whether in the evidence submitted or in the statement of the promoter of this Bill there is language to the effect that a water-power has been granted to this individual? I did not hear it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I stated that the land- and I used the word in its broadest sense- the land facing on this river was granted by the province of Ontario in the year 1856 to a man named Stewart down to the water's edge.


Angus Claude Macdonell: That does not include the bed of the river.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Angus Claude Macdonell: It depends upon the stream.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I shall read the head note in this case. It applied to the Winnipeg river, which is a much larger river than the river under discussion. Here is the head note:
Where a grant of land is made bordering on a river, if a tidal river, the title to the bed is presumed to remain in the Crown, unless otherwise expressed in the grant; whereas if non-tidal, whether navigable or not, the title in the bed ad medium Slum aqus is presumed prima facie to be in the riparian proprietor.
Where, therefore, lands were granted by the Crown bounded by the Winnipeg river, a non-tidal river, the title to the bed of the river ad medium Slum aquae was held to have passed to the riparian owners by virtue of the grant to them, there being nothing in the grants, particulars of which are set out in the case, to rebut the presumption.
I do not think that my hon. friends will dispute that the Court oi Appeal there held that in the case of the Winnipeg river the title went right to the centre of the stream and, therefore, I think the same Court of Appeal would hold that the grant of land to the edge of the water on the Pigeon river would go to the centre of the stream.


William Sora Middlebro: Who owned the
water?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend is not serious in that question.


William Sora Middlebro: Yes, I am quite serious. Who has the proprietary interest in the water?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is an elementary principle of British common law, something the student learns before he takes his first examination, that the water belongs, for the time being, to the man over whose land it happens to be, subject to the rights of the public to navigation over it; and the owner, so long as he does not divert it and take it away, has a right to use it over his own land and turn it into the stream again so that the next riparian below him may have the use of it. Surely my hon. friend was not serious in asking for information on as elementary a matter of law as that. I contend that under this decision Stewart or his assignee is the absolute owner of that land out to the centre of the stream and the absolute owner of the use of that water so long as he does not divert it from the stream. If that is the case, the province of Ontario has no rights in this property or water-power, and, according to the admission of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), it is not the policy of the Ontario government to expropriate or take away from private parties the rights which they own, so they have not any intention of taking this water-power to themselves, and if they did they would have to pay the owners for it. Thus they have no right to say that we should not grant legislation allowing these people to utilize the water.
Coming to the question of expropriation, the amendments grant no right in regard to the Nipigon river beyond the right to establish pole lines. The right of expropriation is continued with regard to the Pigeon river. If I am correct in my assumption that this is not the property of the province of Ontario but of Stewart or his assigns the province of Ontario then has no legal right to come here and interfere unless this parliament lays down the principle that no man in Ontario has the right to own or look at a water-power except with the consent of the provincial government of Ontario. Coming from another province I am not prepared to assent to that, and I doubt if hon. gentlemen from other provinces are prepared. I am myself interested in a number of water-powers; my father was in the business before me and I presume other members in this House are similarly interested. I certainly will not subscribe to the doctrine that any province has a right to come in and take my property without my consent unless they pay me a pretty big fee. Considering that we have jurisdiction, considering that the province of Ontario does not own the land, considering that if this communicates with works going across the river we have the only jurisdiction, I think we are justified, not only justified but compelled if we are to be logical, to vote for this Bill and pass this legislation. Why should we go to Ontario and then in the end have this company come back here to have their works ratified?


Angus Claude Macdonell: The hon. gentleman has taken a few liberties with the House that perhaps it would be as well if he had not taken. He says that the property where it is proposed to work this water-power or erect a dam in connection with the power is private property belonging to a man named Stewart, or granted to him at a certain time. There is not the slightest evidence before this committee of this fact. The hon. gentleman who promotes this Bill has read a telegram from a certain authority in the parliament buildings at Toronto that simply says that in connection with a certain part of this river a certain grant was made in 1854. There is no evidence that the particular spot in the river mentioned in the telegram is the place where

this power plant is proposed to be erected. The Bill is wide open as to the right of selection which this company will have, as to where it will erect its power on this large stream. There is nothing in the Bill tying this company down to erecting its works at the point where it says it owns land. Now that the promoter says he proposes to erect the power works on the private property of this person Stewart, to whom it was granted in 1856, I assume that he will have no objection to having it specified in this Bill that his works are to be erected there and at no other place on this river. Then we will see where we are at and we will know that we are dealing with land owned by a private individual; but as a member of this committee I refuse to support or to allow to pass through unopposed, a noxious Bill that allows a company to make its own selection on the whole course of the river. I suppose my hon. friend who is promoting this Bill, will have no objection, in view of his own statement that the company are going to erect their works on this particular spot and not on Crown property or property expropriated from other people, to stipulate that in his Bill


James Conmee: Will my hon. friend accept the Bill provided I agree to his proposition? If he will, I will accept it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No doubt the hon. gentleman would be very glad to get his Bill through on any terms at all.


James Conmee: Will my hon. friend kindly answer me?


Angus Claude Macdonell: If the hon. gentleman is going to get his Bill through-and it looks as if he were, from the attitude of the government-then it should specify where the works are to be erected. If we cannot get the Bill thrown out by the House, we must get for the people the best that we can.


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend who is promoting the Bill, must not ask us what we will do, in case he makes a certain proposition. Let him make his offer and then we will consider whether it is a proper one or not.


James Conmee: The hon. member from Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) seems to think it would be a fair proposition to say that this development should take place in the location mentioned in the vicinity of Pigeon River falls, mentioned in this telegram. I am willing to agree that the company should be tied down to a specific place and that the Bill should name that place. I know the locality. My telegram was sent to the registrar at Port Arthur asking him for the date of the patent of the land adjoining Pigeon River falls.


Angus Claude Macdonell: His reply was that the date of the patent was not known in his office, but the locality was the Stewart location and the plans showed that the rights of the patentee went to the water's edge. Then I wired to Toronto to have the records searched, and I have a reply stating that the Stewart location was deeded in 1856, so that we have perfect identification of the land as being at the Pigeon River Falls where the intention is to develop the power. There is no other point in the minds of the promoters, and I am quite willing to have that defined in the Bill, if that will meet the views of the hon. gentlemen.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman is of course anxious to get some Bill, but the objection is that we have no right to interfere in this sort of legislation at all. The hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) has shown the best reason why the Bill should be withdrawn; and as our advice has not been listened to, perhaps my hon. friend from Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) will accept the logical results of the argument of the hon. member from Carleton. That hon. gentleman argued that because the property is privately owned, therefore the Dominion must assume jurisdiction over it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I object to being quoted as having said something I did not say.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The logical result of the hon. member's argument was that we need not trouble any more about this, because the property, which runs to the water's edge, has passed into private hands, and therefore the province has no more control over it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: My hon. friend will revise that opinion if he thinks it over. According to that the property I own in St. Catharines, the province of Ontario has no control over.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend understand me to have said that because the property had passed into private control, the province of Ontario had no control over it?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is what I understood.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman is in error. The province of Ontario would have no legislative control over it unless they attempted to expropriate it or take it for their own use.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But they have legislative control over it because if property has passed from the province of Ontario to a private owner, it does not follow that

the province has still not the right to tax it or expropriate it.


James Conmee: How does this Bill interfere with any of those rights?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: One at a time. Has not the province of Ontario still jurisdiction over property and civil rights in the province? The very fact that the title to that land has come down-and I am not admitting that it has-to the present private owner and that these works are going to be built there, is the very reason why this Dominion parliament has no right to exercise jurisdiction in the matter. These parties propose to build on property which is subject to taxation and expropriation and every other power the province has the right to exercise with regard to it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend say that if this Bill were to pass, and this company were incorporated, we would be taking away from Ontario the civil rights reserved to the province under the British North America Act?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not say so, but? that would be the result of my hon. friend's argument. He said that because private people owned this land, the Dominion parliament can do no harm in allowing this1 charter to go through. But we do not know what rights the province of Ontario may choose to exercise over this property. The hon. gentleman says we are not concerned with the past, but only the present policy of the Ontario government. Well, we are concerned with its present policy and its future policy as well, and we have no right to tie up by our legislation the hands of the Ontario government. Because the province has done nothing which would be an obstacle to our passing this Bill, are we to assume that it might not do something in future to which the passage of this Bill might be a hindrance ? I understand that the Ontario government has a policy which involves expropriation of these water-powers under certain conditions by a certain commission in compliance with certain rules, and we should not do anything here which would hamper the provincial government in the carrying out of that policy. I have not heard any one in this House declare what is the best policy for Ontario. What we have said is that the province of Ontario must be left alone to deal with this matter itself, and that we must not interfere with its power, past, present or future.


Haughton Lennox: I think a word might be said with reference to the question interjected by the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, (Mr. Carvell) as to whether it would be possible, if this Act were passed, to interfere with the right of expropriation of the province of Ontario. I am inclined to think that it would materially effect all the Tights of the province in reference to that matter. The province of Ontario has enunciated a policy.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend contend that the passing of this Bill would affect the legal rights of Ontario as to expropriation, or simply affect the policy of the Ontario government?


Haughton Lennox: I compliment myself that I have a habit of making reasonably clear what I intend to say. I am inclined to think that if we pass this legislation we entirely hamper the action of the Ontario legislature.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From a legal standpoint?


Haughton Lennox: From a legal, a moral and a physical standpoint, or any other you like. The policy of the Ontario government is to control its water-powers.


Wilfrid Laurier: What water-powers?


Haughton Lennox: All water-powers in the province which are of advantage to the public in their locality. I do not think the word would apply to an ordinary mill pond. Any stream that is in the general interest of the public to develop, that would be a source of revenue to the province, of general advantage to the province, I think it is the policy of the Ontario government to control such rivers and streams. Now we have enunciated that policy, we have acted upon it, and in 1907 we passed an Act in reference to expropriations, where questions of this kind arise. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) asked, if we passed this legislation will it interfere with the right of the province to expropriate? Why, the foundation of expropriation is gone, we have given it to the member for Rainy River, instead of reserving it to the public.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: After the member for Rainy River has exercised his rights of expropriation under this Bill, does my hon. friend then contend that the province of Ontario has not the right of expropriation?


Haughton Lennox: I am going to show my hon. friend, if he will give me time. I was saying that in my opinion this Bill does interfere with the policy of the Ontario government, and with their Tight to expropriate. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that this Bill, in its amended form, proposes to incorporate the provisions of the Electricity and Fluid Expropriation Act passed by this parliament in 1907? If we turn to the provisions of that Act we will find that not only is the export of electricity regulated by it, but if any one contravenes the provisions of that Act he is made subject to a penalty. The Ontario government


Haughton Lennox: proaching the danger of creating a conflict between the provinces and the federal government? What is the wise policy? Is it a wise policy, using the words of the right hon. gentleman himself, to attempt by brute force to control the Ontario legislature? Is it wise, on the other hand, that we should not recognize that the province, in the interests of its people, have enunciated a policy, have set to work to carry out that policy, and in the development of that policy are now extending it year by year, and have done it in good faith, in the interest of the people? We are the federal head, and would it be wise for us to interfere with the rights of the province? For what? Why, the rights of the province for the sake of a speculative company, a company that does not profess to act in the interest of the people. If it did, I would have my doubts, I would have a mental reservation about it. But it does not profess to come here in the interests of the people. It comes year after year with dogged determination. Turned down two years ago, and turned down a year ago in the Senate, still this company crops up again with dogged pertinacity. 'Not in the interest of the people, but for the benefit of the speculator and the exploiter, not for the purpose of carrying power or light so much to the people of Ontario as for the purpose of exporting power, that great source of wealth, into a rival country, this company comes forward and asks for this right. Is it for that that we will invite a conflict between the elements of the Dominion, the provinces and the federal government, is it for that we will jeopardize the harmony that should prevail between the Dominion and the various provinces, is it for that that we shall say to a province :	'We will turn you down and ignore
your rights, your interests and your wishes? I say it is not wisdom, it is not statesmanship, and I hope that it is not what, in the end, this government will do.
I will be amazed and I will sincerely deplore it, entirely aside from political considerations, if the premier of this Dominion, at a time when he is finishing his work


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr. LENNOX

very nearly finishing
it


An hon. MEMBER.: Not quite so soon.
Mr. LENNOX

should so far forget what
is due to the provinces, what is due to himself, what is due to Canada, as to say that we will turn down a province for the sake of a speculative company. Surely there never was a better opportunity for the right hon. gentleman, who says that he has had several opportunities of distinguishing himself, to distinguish himself still more and to signalize his real adherence to what

used to be a very old war cry of the Liberal party-provincial rights.


Wilfrid Laurier: Notwithstanding the blandishments with which my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) has so kindly referred to me, I must tell him, as I have had occasion to say many times to my Conservative friends, that when they talk of provincial rights they talk of a subject upon which they have very little knowledge, and whatever love they have for it is of very recent importation. There was a time when they ignored provincial rights. I welcome their conversion and I rejoice that they now recognize the error of their ways. We are all at one upon the question of provincial rights. But if it is not fair, if it is not conducive to harmony that the Dominion government should invade the rights of the provinces, neither would it be conducive to harmony that the provinces should invade the rights of the Dominion. The province of Ontario have a policy, and it is the preservation of their water-powers. With regard to their water-powers what right can the province of Ontario claim? If I hold from the province of Ontario 200 acres of land in one of the northern townships, in Algoma or Thunder Bay, if there is a stream or a water-power upon that land have the province of Ontario power to take that away from me? I do not think they have. They have undoubtedly the right of eminent domain and could take it away from me by expropriation. But that is not what I understand to be the policy of the Ontario government today. Nor do I understand that the Ontario government contemplates taking away water-powers which may be on such land. What I understand the Ontario government want to do is to keep in their own hands water-powers on their own Crown lands. That is the policy which they adopted, and properly so. I commend them for it. My hon. friend says, however, that we want to control the rights of the provinces on navigable streams. Well, that is perhaps a doubtful power, but as far as I am concerned I said to mv hon. friend the promoter of this Bill (Mr. Conmee) the other day that he should not attempt to exercise power on the Nipigon river, that there is a conflict between ourselves and the province of Ontario, and as I am a great believer in provincial rights, much more so than those recent converts on the other side of the House who seek to champion the rights of the provinces, I asked him to eliminate that portion of the Bill and he did so. But, when we come to the Pigeon river we have to deal with the case of an international stream. To whom should the power belong to control the waters of an international stream? I have
not had the opportunity for a very long time of knowing personally the hon. member for Portage La Prairie (Mr. Meighen) but he seems to be endowed with a logical mind, although I believe he has not quite apprehended the argument of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice on this subject. He said that the Minister of Justice had imported into this debate an element which should, properly speaking, have nothing to do with it, that is to say that the Minister of Justice claimed that we had jurisdiction to deal with this Bill because it allowed the exportation of electrical energy to the other side of the border line. I have not read the speech of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to-day, but I would observe to my hon. friend from Portage La Prairie that the exportation of electrical energy is not carried on in the same way as would be the exportation of wheat, oats or any other commodity. There is only one way by which electrical energy can be exported from one country to another, and that is by works from one side of the boundary to the other.


Mr. SPROULE.: What works are necessary?


Wilfrid Laurier: There must be a wire from one part of the country to the other.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How do they distribute it all over Canada and attach it to houses?


James Conmee: By wires and cables.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No, in cans and by wagon loads.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend thinks that we export electrical energy in cans, I would tell him that that means of exportation is altogether inadequate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I said was in answer to the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister that there was only one way in which it could be exported.


Wilfrid Laurier: By this Bill?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Certainly. I know my hon. friend from Rainy River too well to believe that he will undertake to export electrical energy by cans. He has bigger ideas than that. He wants to do a work of an international character. Upon that question the jurisdiction remains with this House, and my hon. friend from South Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox) will surely agree with me that it is right, proper and conducive to harmony that the Dominion and not the province should exercise jurisdiction.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not know whether I may touch on some questions that others have already dealt with



Sir WILFRID _LAURIER. Dear me, I thought everything had been touched upon in this debate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But notwithstanding that, I have my views upon the question and therefore the right to present them. This is not the first time that there seems to have been a conflict of jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal authority. We have had many such conflicts in regard to which cases have been taken to the courts and carried to the highest court in the empire. In each case where a finality was reached there was a decision in favour of one side or the other. That has, to some extent, accentuated the feeling on this question in regard to who owns and who should control these rights. The provinces have become somewhat sensitive upon the question and are growing more and more so every year, especially in view of the fact that there are inroads being made upon their rights almost every year by legislation put through the federal parliament. We have had several contests between the provinces and the Dominion and invariably the provinces came off best. At one time it was claimed that the timber on certain lands belonged to the Dominion, but that claim failed before the tribunals of the land. At one time it was claimed that the federal authority had the right to control the minerals, but the decision was that all the minerals except gold and silver belonged to the provinces. Again, the Dominion asserted control over the fisheries, but the decision was that while the Dominion could control the mode of catching fish and declare what should be a close season and what should be an open season, yet the right in the fish themselves belonged to the provinces and that, while the province could not delimit where the license-holder should work, yet the province had power to issue licenses, and to-day the province of Ontario can issue licenses to fish in the Georgian bay, or in Lake Superior, or any of the inland waters. The question as to jurisdiction over streams was carried to the Privy Council, and the right of the provinces in the streams was established. Is it not the streams that make the water-powers, and I have no doubt the decisions of the courts will be that the water-powers should be controlled by the province. Up to the present time we have never had the contention raised that the water-powers belonged to any other authority than the provinces, but now it is said that this parliament has the power to incorporate a company to utilize these water-powers and to take their control away from the provinces. In future, it is to be laid down, that companies which get their entity from the federal parliament will be able to supplant the provinces in these rights. I venture to think that if the time should come when this question will be fought out in the highest court of the empire, the de-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: cision will be that the province of Ontario is supreme.
In pursuance of their undoubted right the province of Ontario has established a Hydro-electric Power Commission and that commission has entered into contracts to sell power to municipalities and to manufacturers and to others who desire to use electricity. The Ontario government hope to develop a large part of that electricity from the latent water-powers that belong to the province and which it is their intention to develop. It is said by those who have given the subject attention that there are water-powers enough in the province of Ontario to turn every spindle in every machine, to keep every factory running, to light every town and village and city, to supply every manufacturer with motive power and all the farmers with power to run their threshing machines and to light their residences and barns. The policy of the Ontario government is to utilize that power and to regulate it so that justice may be done to all and injustice to none. But the object of this company which we are asked now to incorporate is to invade the sacred rights of the province and to interfere with their policy in that respect. Is this parliament to be a party to allowing this company to dispoil the province of what belongs to it. This question of federal and provincial rights is a burning question in the different provinces, and if this government continues its policy of interfering with provincial rights the time may come and undoubtedly will come when a bitter fight will arise between the provinces and the federal authority. In the United States interference by the federal authority with state rights led to the secession of many of the states from the Union. Who knows that we will not bring about the same condition of affairs in this Dominion if this parliament year after year pursues the policy of invading the rights of the provinces. The present government by its improper interference, and I say it advisedly, with the rights of Manitoba, has almost driven Manitoba into revolt against federal authority. The province of Manitoba sent to this parliament a majority of members opposed to the government because the government has interfered with her undoubted Tights.


Wilfrid Laurier: When was
that ?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to the extension of the provincial boundaries, with regard to the educational rights of the province, and with regard to other things, the result of which has been to create in Manitoba a distinctly unfriendly feeling against the Dominion government. The same thing has occurred in British Columbia. The absolute refusal of this government to submit the claims of that province to a competent and independent tribunal, and in-

terference with the province on the question as to who shall have the right to occupy her territory, has almost driven British Columbia into a revolt against the federal authorities and a large majority of the representatives from that province have been sent here to oppose this government. Notwithstanding that experience in the case of these two very important provinces, this government seems anxious to invite the antagonism of the great province of Ontario by depriving her of authority which she has the right to exercise. I say that this government is driving Ontario as well into revolt, and if this insane policy is pursued it will not be long before the present government will find that Ontario will be as solidly arrayed against them as are British Columbia and Manitoba. The conduct of the government is inviting this contest. It is said that if you tread on a worm it will turn, and I say that this government is tramping on an authority that is too great and too powerful not to be reckoned with in the future. If the government continues this fatuous policy in the interest of speculators or spoilators, I do not care which you call them, there is a threatening day coming when rupture will result and when the Dominion of Canada as a federation will suffer. I warn them that they are treading upon dangerous ground, and the premier would be well advised if he would call off his friends who are driving this on regardless of all consequences, knowing that t.hev are dealing with what the province believes to be its undoubted right.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Just a word to put my hon. and learned friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) right on one or two points. Extreme zeal to advance the interests of his desk mate has carried him a little beyond the legal position he attempted to maintain. The hon. gentleman was not in his seat this morning, or he would have heard the answer I made to the statement that the fact that the ground came down to the water's edge gave this grantee the entire area, because, as I pointed out, in the grant from the Crown there is a reservation of at least five per cent for roads and highways, out of which the Crown could make its own selection anywhere it chose on this property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is my hon. friend aware that it has been stated by the hon. member for Rainy River that that option had been exercised and that the Surveyor General of Ontario told him that the Crown could not go any further?


Angus Claude Macdonell: The hon. member for Rainy River made no statement further than this, that certain areas had been opened up on this property, but he did not make the statement that the Crown had exercised that five per cent provision.


James Conmee: The hon. member evidently did not catch my words. I gave the circumstances under which the Crown was called upon to exercise its right of laying out public roads and utilizing the five per cent reserve in the patent, and I pointed out that they had made two main roads from which one or two branches went to the water's edge. They were requested to make other roads, and the answer of the Minister of Crown Lands, the Hon. Mr. Gibson, was that the Crown had exercised its right because it had utilized the five per cent reserve.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I accept the hon. gentleman's statement, but I would like to know if he has ever heard that it was not that five per cent that was used.


James Conmee: It could not be any other.


Angus Claude Macdonell: In the second place, the hon. member for Carleton laid great emphasis on the case of the Keewatin Power Company against the town of Ken-ora; the hon. member for South Essex, (Mr. A. H. Clarke) also referred to that case. In reading the case carefully, both of these hon. gentlemen will observe that it merely decides that in the case of ordinary rivers flowing through the country, the presumption is that the bed of the stream to the middle of the stream is vested in the patentee from the Crown. That is only a presumption liable to be rebutted by evidence or practice. But it does not apply to the case of an international river. Chief Justice Moss, in giving his judgment, said :
But in this case we are not dealing with the great lakes nor with a river forming part of the international boundary.
And so on through the whole case. Rivers forming the international boundary are especially excepted from the consideration of this case. So the whole argument of my hon. friend from Carleton is just as good as if it had never been made.


Richard Blain: When this matter was before the Private Bills Committee, the Ontario government sent a special representative here to present their views. Notwithstanding the statement that was made on behalf of the Ontario government, the committee adopted the Bill as introduced, with all the objections which my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) has since ventured to suggest should be removed. Therefore I think it only fair that the Ontario government should have another opportunity of appearing before the committee. Surely my hon. friend will not say, after having ignored altogether the representations of the Ontario government, as presented so well by Mr. Black-stock, that it is fair to the Ontario govern-

ment that this Bill should be pressed through the House without that government having another opportunity to be heard. I appeal to the Prime Minister to say whether that is fair as a champion of provincial rights. Those of us who come from the province of Ontario are specially interested in this matter. We heard the right hon. gentleman's party for many years in the province of Ontario claiming to be the only champions of provincial rights. While they were doing that, they were taking care of the rights of their own supporters. While professing to fight for the rights of the people of Ontario, they were granting special rights to their own supporters in that province. They took the ground at one time that timber in the province of Ontario applied for by people in the United States could be taken across to the United States and cut into lumber there, and while doing that they were championing provincial rights. " That matter was brought up in the legislature by the Liberal Conservative party while my hon. friend was there, and the Liberal Conservative party took the ground that the timber should not be taken out of the province and cut into lumber in the United States, but should be cut into lumber in Ontario, and my hon. friend voted against that resolution when it was introduced into the Ontario legislature. That question was fought out between the two parties in the province and when the people understood what the policy of the Liberal Conservative party was on that question, the legislature was compelled to adopt it, and the timber was no longer allowed to be taken to the United States to be cut into lumber, but was required to be cut into lumber in the province of Ontario. However, that is beside the question. I only point this out in answer to the Prime Minister and to remind the Minister of Railways who was then in the legislature and was also a noted champion of provincial rights.


Mr. GRAHAM.: My hon. friend's history is all wrong.


Richard Blain: Oh no, it is not. Will miy hon. friend deny that the policy of compelling the manufacture of timber into lumber in Ontario was first introduced by the Conservative party.


James Conmee: What timber?


Richard Blain: Crown timber. I challenge the Minister of Railways to deny that statement.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will study the case he will find that it was Mr. Miseampbell who under certain circumstances introduced a resolution in the legislature and not Mr. Meredith.


Richard Blain: 


James Conmee: Long after Mr. Meredith left the House.


George Perry Graham: It was a resolution introduced in the House under particular circumstances which was voted down as many others are. The Liberal party took up the question some time later and put on the statute-book an Act which compelled the sawing of logs in this country.


Richard Blain: I will accept that state-' ment. The Liberal party put it on the statute book, but year after year they allowed the timber to go out of the province, and according to the admission of the hon. gentleman it was a conservative and not a Libera] who first introduced that policy in the Ontario House. The policy was adopted by the Liberals of Ontario under pressure of the Conservatives.


George Perry Graham: Nonsense.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend knows that very well.


James Conmee: No, I deny that. It was a subject of discussion for many years before that.


Richard Blain: I suppose he will deny that his party were granting special rights to his friends, such as timber limits to Captain Sullivan.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order. The clause before the committee is clause No. I. It allows a great deal of latitude in discussion and I am not disposed to prevent that, but any argument used by the hon. gentleman must be applied to clause I in some way and matters brought before the House must not be discussed for themselves alone unless in relation to this clause.


Richard Blain: I bow to the Chairman, I am only answering the right hon. gentleman.


Wilfrid Laurier: In discussing Mr. Miseampbell you are missing the point.


Richard Blain: The right hon. gentleman introduced the question of the policy of the two parties on provincial rights and I was answering that point.


George Perry Graham: You did not answer it very well.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to carry it) further; my point is that it would be fair for this committee to return the corrected. Bill to the Private Bills Committee for their consideration, so that the Ontario government might have an opportunity to have their representative present and give their views upon this Bill. This is undoubtedly an interference with the policy of the provincial government of Ontario. The very changes that have been made in the Bill since its first introduction show that. I

am quite sure the Prime Minister wishes to be fair with this House and with the province of Ontario, and that he would not be a party to pressing through the House a Bill, of this kind without first giving the province an opportunity to appear before, the Private Bills Committee, for the amended Bill has not been before that committee. This House should not adopt a Bill of this kind which is taking away the rights of the people of Ontario and conferring them on a speculative concern.


William Sora Middlebro: From the arguments of hon. gentlemen opposite it appears that the claim of jurisdiction of this parliament to enact this legislation is based very largely on the theory that the power we are giving to this company to export their product to the United States, gives exclusive jurisdiction to this parliament. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), the Minister of Justice, and the Prime Minister have taken that view. As a matter of reason I do not think it was intended by the British North America Act that jurisdiction should be given to this parliament by the mere fact that we put into a Bill the right to do something which we ouselves cannot enforce, and which the persons to whom we give that right cannot do. Our saying that this company may export their power to the United States does not give them the right to go into the United States and carry on that exportation and we ourselves cannot compel them to do what they say they have the right to do. In other words we cannot give any more legal authority to this company to export into the United States than can the province of Ontario. The right hon. gentleman says that because this company may incidentally require to erect some poles and lines beyond the limits of Ontario and in a foreign country that fact in itself gives power to this parliament. The right hon. gentleman will agree that if a railroad company authorized by a provincial legislature to build a railway which is intended to go into the State of Maine can give that company authority to build that railway, that is a much stronger case than the case of simply allowing transportation lines to be built into the United States to export power. I quote a case on that point. In the province of New Brunswick 6ome years ago power was given by the provincial legislature to a railway company to commence and build a railroad in the province of New Brunswick, the intention being that it would be extended on into the -state of Maine. It was extended on into the state of Maine and the company obtained corporate authority from the legislative assembly of Maine to build and did build a section of that railway in that state. A shareholder, in an action, set up
the plea that the provincial legislature had no right to grant that authority to that railway because it was a railway extending to a foreign country and the question came up on that direct issue: had the provincial legislature power to incorporate that company, knowing it was going to extend its railway into Maine. The Court answered the question in this way:
The fact of the legislature of a foreign country authorizing the construction of a line of railway in that country for the purpose of connecting with a provincial railway does not in any way affect the authority of the legislature of the province to legislate with respect to the railway within the bounds of the province.
We cannot legislate for a foreign country, and the fact that authority to extend transmission lines in the United States of America, is mentioned in this Bill, would not prevent the parliament of Ontario from granting to this company all the rights, powers, and privileges which they could enjoy within the province of Ontario. If you are asking for the power to transmit your electricity from one province to another, the jurisdiction would be in this parliament, but we have not jurisdiction in the case of transmission from a province to a foreign countrv. If my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) will look at the wording of the subsection he quotes, namely, 'Local works of the provinces other than such, are of the following class,'-that is to say all local works are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Ontario except the following classes-
Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other portions of the province or extending beyond the limits of the province.
The words 'extending beyond the limits of the province,' I take it, mean extending into some unorganized district, because this Act was passed in 1867 and there were other territories then within the Dominion, outside the provinces, so that the exception was intended to apply to cases where you would extend your railway into some unorganized district, but not into some foreign country. Take the next exception:
Lines of steamships between the provinces and any British or foreign country.
That would apply to a line running into the United States, which the province would have no right to authorize.


Haughton Lennox: There was a proposition made by hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) a few moments ago which has not received the attention it deserved, and that is that this is practically a new Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: I know there are some people who do not realize what that means. If it were a new Bill, shorn of all its objectionable features, we could understand that it would not probably be necessary to give the Ontario government an opportunity of presenting their views upon it before a committee of this House. But this new Bill not only eliminates certain features, but is introducing others. According to the notice of the amendments which we had, it is provided that we shall incorporate the whole of this Electrical Expropriation Bill 'which was passed in 1897, and it is therefore just as important, as before, that the government of Ontario should have the opportunity of being heard with regard to it. It embodies provisions	just as
dangerous, even more so than those we had in the old Bill. The Ontario government are the best judges of what seriously affects that province.	Whether
our hon. friends opposite like it or not, people of Ontario have, by an overwhelming majority, committed their affairs to the keeping of Sir James Whitney and his cabinet; and these representatives have the right to be heard. When the first Bill was introduced the hon. gentleman who is promoting it, said it was all right in every particular, just as emphatically as he is now doing in the case of the present Bill. That first Bill having been bowled out on the 19th of last month, he now comes with an entirely new proposition, thereby admitting that he was wrong then. Well, I am strongly of the opinion that he is equally wrong now. We have the statement of the Prime Minister, not two weeks old, that he will respect the rights of the provinces, but he has abandoned that position to-day. Surely it is only right when the progressive policy of the Ontario government with respect to water-powers is being invaded, as it is by this measure, that the government should have the Tight to appear before this parliament or in committee and state its case. Ontario, besides being one of the old and large provinces, is the province which stood the brunt of the fight for provincial rights; and after having established its rights as a province through a long series of litigation; it comes now and asks that this parliament shall not, now pass a measure, such as this, which infringes on those rights. My hon. friend says he is a champion of provincial rights.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Haughton Lennox: I do not wish to rob him of any of his laurels and I should be sorry to see him cast any shadow upon his reputation in that regard, but whoever may have fought most gallantly for provincial rights, it was the province of Ontario that waged the battle.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Haughton Lennox: It was the province of Ontario that won the fight, and it is the province of Ontario, of which my hon.
friend of Thunder Bay is a distinguished representative in this House, whose rights are threatened now. To-day it is Ontario, to-morrow it may be British Columbia or Quebec. Let the right hon. gentleman who leads this House recollect that this is a question in which both provincial and federal rights are concerned. Again I say that if we are going to develop Canada we can only do it by seeing that the rights of every portion of the Dominion are respected, not only their rights but their prejudices, and so far as possible, the will of every part of the Dominion. We are to-day at a critical point in our history. I am convinced that no more dangerous question comes before this House than the question of provincial rights. Look at the geographical position of this country, see how diverse are the interests of Canada, and do not shut your eyes to the fact that there is dissatisfaction in many of the provinces to-day at the action of the government. Day after day the friction increases, and some day it will reach such a point that the strain can no longer be endured, and we shall see some of the provinces wishing to get out of the confederation in which they cannot have due recognition of their rights. I do not think it will be Ontario. I do not think it will be Quebec; I think the greater danger is in regard to the western provinces. I urge again on the Prime Minister not to ignore the appeal of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). Do not throw this objection aside with a wave of the hand, saying, I have great respect for committees which send these Bills before us. In this case that argument does not apply. The Bill now before us is, practicaly, a new Bill, it is practically new legislation, adopting a new principle, and is it fair that the government and the people of Ontario should be excluded from an opportunity of appearing before this parliament and presenting their views?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is quite true that it was the province of Ontario which fought the battle of provincial rights, and it is quite true that my hon. friend did not help very much in that battle. It is also true that he and his friends were against us in that battle, and the glory of the victory belongs to the Liberals of the province of Ontario. But my hon. friend is welcome to his tardy conversion, and after delivering to us an eloquent speech he has ended with the old refrain, Ontario, Ontario. My hon. friend says that I should give some heed to the request made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain). If I did not heed the request of the hon.

member for Peel, it was not through discourtesy for that hon. member. My hon. friend says we have a new Bill to-day. It is true we have a new Bill, but the old Bill has been amended to meet the requests of the representatives of the Ontario government who were before the committee.


Richard Blain: The Ontario government still objects to the Bill, notwithstanding the amendments and changes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does the Ontario government object, for instance, to this second section of the Bill:
The works authorized by this Act are declared to he works for the general advantage of Canada.
I understand that Mr. Blackstock took strong objection to that. Does my hon. friend say that the government of Ontario want those clauses restored now?


Richard Blain: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then the government of Ontario objected to the powers of expropriation being taken away in regard to the Nipigon river. Does my hon. friend want those to be restored also? In fact, the Bill has been amended in the line desired by the province in everything, and I am not sure that we shall not also agree to the request of the province when we come to consider the power of expropriation as regards the Pigeon river. This is the only question before us, and when we come to the power of expropriation on the Pigeon river, we shall see whether or not the rights of the province are being infringed upon. If the Tights of the province in the Pigeon river are being infringed upon, we will consider that matter when we come to it, and I will see whether I am able to support my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: The right hon. gentleman has asked whether I object to clause number two declaring that the work authorized bv this Act are works for the general advantage of Canada. My right hon. friend states correctly that this was in the original Bill that was passed by the committee. But according to the amendment of my hon. friend who has introduced this Bill, that clause has been taken out of it. I will say on that point that it is certainly in accordance with the policy of the Ontario government, and for myself I am in accord with it. But my right hon. friend forgets the all important point-these others are all minor points-the all important point for the provincial government, the all important point in the discussion this afternoon as contended on this side of the House, is that this federal government is attempting to legislate on a matter that the Ontario government alone should legislate upon. That is the whole point.


James Conmee: I may remind the hon. member that the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce) gave notice of an amendment, and I think it is fair to assume that that hon. member discussed this amendment with representatives of the Ontario government, and they were satisfied with it.


John Barr: I submit that this is one of the most important measures that have been brought before the House this session, and I venture to say that the end is not for the general advantage of Canada that as soon as the iniquity was pointed out, the government consented to Temedy it. We pointed out that this work was not for the general advantage of Canada from the fact that it was only a waterpower on one part of the river. The Minister of Justice declared that it might be for the general advantage of Canada, and it might not. The result was that that part was taken out. Why was it taken out?-because this side of the House fought it not onlv in committee but in the House. It was found to be a very glaring objection and the result was that the promoter of the Bill was willing to cut it out. The hon. member for Rainy River is satisfied to cut it down in any direction. All he wants is to get the Bill through and then he imagines that he can come forward next year and get just what he requires. If he can only get in the thin edge of the wedge and succeed in dividing the jurisdiction between this House and the province he will have accomplished his object. I am somewhat surprised to find the Prime Minister claiming that he has always been the champion of provincial rights. When I was in the provincial House and when we were fighting the question of provincial rights we always stood shoulder to shoulder with the government.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Barr: There was never a time when the Mowat government were in the right that we were at variance with them. On every occasion we gave them all the assistance we could and we said to them: We want you to fight the question out in the highest tribunal not only in the Dominion but in the British empire. If the First Minister was then zealous of provincial rights he has certainly fallen from grace. Now, a fair offer has been made by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). He asks that this Bill go back to the committee in order that the government of Ontario may have the right to present their case. They have no right to be heard upon this Bill at the present time, and it is not one iota less objectionable than the old Bill which was rejected after a hard fight by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. By this new Bill we are usurping a power which we have no right to usurp.



We are endeavouring to pass one of the most important Bills that has ever been before this House without placing it before a committee in order that all parties outside of the House interested in it may have an opportunity of expressing their views, and, if necessary of opposing the Bill. Outside of the members of the House no person has any right to be heard on this question. It is a principle of our British institutions that all Bills before the House should be sent to a committee so that those whose rights are affected shall have an opportunity of going before that committee and of stating their objections. This right has been denied in this case. The proposition has been made but hon. gentlemen opposite say that they cannot accede to it. Why? Are they afraid of the people? Are they afraid of the Ontario government? Why should we depart from the usual custom? What is the urgency in connection with this Bill? If this Bill is allowed to pass, and if we accept the' statement of the Prime Minister, any Bill affecting the water-powers or assets of the province of Ontario can be passed by the Dominion parliament so long as the incorporators join with some other company in the United States or other foreign land. If that is the case every water-power in Ontario can be taken over by the Dominion. We are anxious to preserve these water-powers. The Ontario government have accomplished more in the last two years in connection with the preservation of water-powers, by forming a commission for the purpose of developing these powers than any government has done since the days of confederation. If any person can bring in a Bill of this kind affecting any water-power in the province of Ontario the result will be that the hands of the Ontario government will be tied. The work of the last few years will be set aside and this' House will be usurping a power which was never intended to be exercised by it. Under these circumstances we are quite justified in exerting our strength and power in the effort to enforce our rights. The promoter of this Bill tells us that there are no rights affected, that the government have exhausted their one fifth in connection with the road because they have made two roads, one going north and the other south. But, has he given us the evidence that they have exhausted their one-fifth? Have we not reason to believe that the government have yet in reserve much of that one-fifth? Have the government even put a road along the water's edge or any part of it? The result of the passage of this Bill will be an immediate conflict between the province and the Dominion. We do not know who is the owner of this property that we are handing over by this Bill. We are on clause 2.


John Barr: 


Haughton Lennox: No, clause 1.


John Barr: Well, we come next to clause 2. What do we find? There is only one of the incorporators who resides in Ontario. All the rest of them, or at least three of them, are from the United States and one from Manitoba. I submit that we would proceed much faster if the government would- act in the way they do in connection with many other Bills. I submit that we would make much better progress if this Bill were to go back in accordance with the suggestion of my hon. friend from Peel so that we could discuss it in committee.


An hon. MEMBER.: Carried.


John Barr: Calling out 'carried' will not put this Bill through the House. There are two or three hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House who seem to think that the object their constituents had in sending them here was to call out 'carried' If we were to inquire what they had accomplished in this House we would find that they had not done much more than call out 'carried'. This Bill is too important to be rushed through the house as hon. gentlemen are endeavouring to do. We have settled the question that the provincial government have all the power that is required to enable this company to unite with interests in the United States to operate a power plant. It is the provincial government which knows best whether or not it is in the interest of the country that such a Bill as this should pass. I appeal to hon. gentlemen from the other provinces to hesitate before supporting this Bill. The time may come when the rights of other provinces will be infringed upon and then they will require the assistance of the Ontario members who have always shown themselves ready to stand up for provincial rights. It must not be forgotten that Ontario is the banner province of this Dominion, that it is growing faster than any other province, and that it will demand its rights. When the Liberals were in power in the province of Ontario their boast was that they stood up for provincial rights and demanded justice for their province, but their friends in this House seem to have gone back on these principles.


Edmund James Bristol: I understand that, rightly or wrongly, the province of Ontario object on principle to the passage of this Bill, and the Prime Minister tells us that very important changes have been made in the Bill since the authorities of that province had an opportunity to consider the measure. Now, I do not know anybody who is more anxious to have good feeling exist between himself and the various provinces than the Tight hon. the Prime Minister, and I really am at a loss to un-

derstand how it is that he, on a matter of such very considerable importance to the province of Ontario, should not at once have acceded to the suggestion to allow the Bill to stand for some days, when, by doing so, we might have been saved all this discussion. I would also remind the right hon. gentleman that no member of the House has a copy of the printed Bill as it appears before us to-day. Under these circumstances and in view of his own record and the dignity which attaches to his position as Prime Minister, I think the right hon. gentleman could very well afford to be even more than courteous to the province of Ontario. I do not argue on the question of jurisdiction; I am quite prepared to believe that there may be and there probably is concurrent jurisdiction, but I have felt very strongly on Bills of this kind which have from time to time been presented to this House and I have come to the conclusion that there should be some basic principle upon which this parliament should act. I have ventured the suggestion that that principle should be practically what is laid down in the British North America Act, namely, that undertakings which are local in their nature should be left to the local jurisdiction, except, if it should become necessary to render effective such local works, then they could come to this House for legislation to the extent that might be necessary to render them so effective. I would point out, however, to the Prime Minister that the" legislation we are asked to pass here is a case of the tail wagging the dog, because the smallest part of this undertaking are the wires that would connect with the United States. The only possible suggestion in the Bill which would give this parliament authority to legislate under the British North America Act is subsection (b) of clause (a), which enables them to connect their cables, &c., with similar lines in other provinces and in the United States.


James Conmee: What about the construction of the works across an international stream?


Edmund James Bristol: The real part of this undertaking are the buildings, works, dynamos, and machinery that will be constructed, and which will cost millions of dollars. They will all be located in Ontario. The most trifling part of the_ undertaking, and the onl'T thing which brings it under the authority of this parliament, is the wire which carries power across to the United States, and that I now believe can be dealt with under the general Act passed in connection with the Niagara Power regarding the exportation of electricity. I would remind the Prime Minister that we are a young country, that we hope to have the best part of the British empire here in 100 years, and that this Dominion parlia-171 i	1
ment should not want to be bothered with local undertakings. There are big enough questions before this parliament and before this country to last during the lifetime of the right hon. gentleman and the rest of us without bothering with local undertakings, beyond what we can avoid. I do not want to obstruct the progress of this country, and this is not a personal question with me; but it is a question of principle and a question as to what are the best interests of the Dominion. If you adopt the principle that the province o)f Ontario, the province of Quebec, the province of Nova Scotia and the other provinces shall deal with their electrical undertakings and water-powers, and that we should deal with the question of the export of power when it is to be exported, then I think you will be on safe ground. If the principle of provincial authority had been adopted with respect to many of the electrical railways which we have incorporated in this parliament, we would have been rid of a great deal of legislation that we do not want. That is the true principle of provincial rights as fought for by the right hon. gentleman and his political friends; and I compliment them on the fight and I am glad they won. If we proceed on that principle we will have harmony. If we adopt the principle of putting these local works and undertakings in the provinces and then giving them such legislation in this parliament as is necessary for the purpose of what I might call foreign relations we will be confining our legislation to what properly comes within the purview of this parliament, and we will be -dealing with these questions in a broad and statesmanlike manner.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Bristol) was not here when this matter first came up, and when the province of Ontario was heard upon these questions. I sympathize with the object of the authorities of the province of Ontario in so far as they want to keep control over the water-powers of the province, but I must qualify that, if qualification is necessary, by saying that in the case of works of this kind which are to be constructed on international streams the jurisdiction belongs to the Dominion parliament, and I think my hon. friend (Mr. Bristol) will agree with me in that. T understood him to say that when it became a question of the export of power across the boundary, the jurisdiction must be in this parliament.


Edmund James Bristol: What I said was that the company could obtain from the legislature of Ontario all the necessary legislation they required for the development of water-power unless they wished to export it. That was as far as I went.


Wilfrid Laurier: But I do not
see how any power .could be developed on

the Pigeon river except by the joint authority of the United States and Canada, and that is why this Bill has come to us. The government of Ontario has been heard before the Committee on Private Bills, and I hope they agree with us on the question of jurisdiction; if not, I would have to take issue with them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How does the Prime Minister account for the fact, carefully not answered by the gentlemen supporting the Bill, that the Canadian Electric Company has been doing all that these people want to do on an international stream, and doing it for years, under a provincial charter? The right hon. gentleman says they could not do it, which is like the lawyer who told a man that they could not put him in jail for what he had done, and the man replied, 'But I am in jail.' So the Canadian Electric Company has been generating power on the Niagara river and exporting it under a provincial charter, for many years.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the man was in jail, the lawyer should have tried to get him out. I do not want to be put in jail in this instance.


James Conmee: The hon. -member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) knows that there is no comparison between the two cases. Assuming that the Canadian Electric Company is acting under a provincial charter, though my information is that it is not


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I know that it is. It applied for a Dominion charter, and withdrew its application.


James Conmee: Assuming that the hon. gentleman is correct, there is no dam required in that case. There is no other stream in America on which power can be developed on the one side or the other by perpendicular shaft sinking such as there is at Niagara Falls. In its practical working out, this scheme is entirely different.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: The right hon. the First Minister is aware that the premier of the province of Ontario has seriously objected to this Bill being passed in its present form. The Bill has been changed very materially, and I would like to ask what objection the First Minister has to allow it to remain over for a few days until we hear from the government of Ontario.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have heard that the Prime Minister of Ontario objected to the Bill as it was introduced. I have not heard that he objects to the Bill as it is now modified. I do not see how he can do so, because the modifications are all along the line he himself has advocated. If he objected to the jurisdiction of this parliament to pass the Bill, I would have to take issue with him.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER,


Richard Blain: I may say that I produced a letter this morning from the Prime Minister of the provinoe of Ontario in which he objected to the Bill. I sent him the original Bill, a corrected copy and the proposed amendments, and he wrote in reply that he was altogether opposed to the Bill even with those changes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister says that this parliament is the sole authority to authorize the company to export power from the country. Therefore we give them the right to take what belongs to the province, and assist them to carry it out of the country. Is that not very much like a man stealing something belonging to you, and not being able to get out of the country with it, you help him to do so?
At six o'clock committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I am utterly opposed to this Bill in its present form and I believe it would be wise for the government to send it back to the committee and allow the premier of Ontario to send representatives here to place before the committee the ideas of the Provincial government I am satisfied that the day is not far distant when the people of Canada will forbid the export of electrical power to the United States in any form, when they will realize that it is necessary for us to conserve that power fox our own benefit instead of sending it across the line to help develop American factories and enable them to produce goods at a cheaper rate than our factories, so that they can undersell us. I would again ask the First Minister were he here what objections he has to allowing this Bill to remain over for a few days. I understood him to say that he did not know that the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) had a letter from the premier of Ontario opposing this measure. I cannot but feel, after listening to the debate this afternoon, that hon. gentlemen on this side of the House are perfectly right and justified in their opposition to the Bill. The promoter of the Bill (Mr. Conmee) and the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, (Mr. Carvell) are practically the only government supporters who are upholding this measure.
I am surprised that government supporters from Ontario are not defending it and can not, but think, that the promoter must feel humiliated at not being able to obtain the support of government mtembers to this measure. One would expect a number of prominent Liberals to defend the Bill but in the light of their action in this committee, I am forced to conclude that this

measure does not receive the unanimous support of the Liberal members of the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I need not enter into an argument in reply to my hon. friend, because all his points have already been replied to. I merely rise to call the attention of my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Claude Macdonell), and the committee to the case I cited this afternoon as found in the Ontario Law Beports for 1908, the Keewatin Power Company versus Ken-ora. I read the head note of the case but at that time I had not read the body of the judgment. My hon. friend said I was wrong in my assumption and claimed that the law as laid down in this case did not apply to a boundary or international river. During the recess I have had occasion to look at the case rather particularly, and I am satisfied that on consideration he will agree that he is in error in his conclusion. He read a sentence or two from the judgment of Chief Justice Moss at page 190 in which the learned chief justice says:
That is the case in many instances in England, occasionally in tidal streams and not infrequently in non-tidal navigable streams. Whichever prima facie presumption is applicable, it may yield to some extent or wholly to other circumstances. In this case we are not dealing with the great lakes nor with a river forming part of the international boundary. But in these instances the prima facie presumption would probably be not difficult of rebuttal.
Had my hon. friend read down he would have found:
I am not mindful of the fact that in a number of instances there are found expressions of very learned and able judges strongly favouring the view that the rule of the common law is inapplicable to the great lakes and rivers of this country. But, while there are these expressions, there has been no actual decision on the direct point.
He then enters into a discussion of two cases lately decided by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Chancery in England in which they laid down the law of England and on the next page Mr. Justice Moss says:
And apparently the rule applies as well to the Detroit river as to other navigable streams.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The court there is stating the law of the State of Michigan with regard to the Detroit river.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I am not; I am giving the opinion of Mr. Justice Moss.
Indeed, as the learned trial judge mentions, it has been expressly held to apply to the St. Mary's river, a large navigable stream forming part of the international boundary.
And a little further on:
In my opinion, the rule of the common law as to the presumption of title in the beds of the streams, whether navigable or non-navigable, still prevails in this province, and is to be applied in the first instance. _ Whether there exist circumstances or conditions sufficient to repel the presumption is a question to be dealt with in the particular case.
I also call attention to the judgment of Mr. Justice Meredith as found at page 198. He says:
But in this case, as in all other cases in which the question is raised, we are confronted with two bogies, now so familiar that, if familiarity rightly breeds contempt, they ought not to be viewed with much awe. The one is international complications, the other the great lakes and rivers.
He goes on and refers to the fact that there are 1,000 miles of international boundary line and says:
The fact that in the great lakes the land line would be under water would hardly make it more inflammable. But if there were anything in the point, it would be a ground for legislation, or for taking the case out of the rule, not for the exclusion of the rule by adjudication, because incompatible with the circumstances of this continent.
He then enters into a discussion as to whether or not the Great Lakes are tidal. At page 200 Judge Meredith sums up his finding:
The law of England, therefore, is the rule for the decision of this case, the statute so requires, and the courts have no more right to endeavour to evade than they have to defy that enactment; and even if that were not so. and if the courts were at liberty to formulate any other general rule, I am -not able to suggest a better one, nor have I heard of a better one suggested by any one else. Arguments based upon suggestions of inapplicability are but attempts to evade; so, too, arguments based upon the fact that in England, in one sense, only tidal rivers are navigable rivers. The rule has been adopted, and must be applied, for better or for worse, until legislation intervenes.
I think it only fair to the committee that I should cite this case in order to show that I am correct in my contention. Here is an authority which declares that the bed of this particular river, if granted to an individual, is beyond the control of the province.


Angus Claude Macdonell: 
Haughton Lennox: We ought to come to some arrangement regarding this matter. There ought to be some accommodation by

one side to the other. This is not a question of a technical ruling but of paying reasonable deference to the expressed opinion of the government of the province. The right hon. the Prime Minister said at six o'clock that he had not understood that the Prime Minister of Ontario objected to this Bill in its present shape, but my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) told the House this morning that he received a letter from the Premier of Ontario, in reply to one sent him by my hon. friend inclosing a copy of the Bill as now reprinted with the amendments, saying that he was very much opposed to it. I would ask my hon. friend the Finance Minister, who is leading the House, to give an opportunity to the leader of the Ontario government to state his objections before the Bill passes. My hon. friend from Thunder Bay (Mr. Conmee) thundered at us this afternoon the statement that we are not gov. erned by the Prime Minister of Ontario. Certainly not, but that ought not to prevent us giving him a hearing and doing what is right. I do not want to obstruct this measure, but I do not think any great calamity will result to the people of Ontario in particular or the Dominion as a whole if this Bill should stand over until another session. I am not at liberty to quote the language of the ' Globe ' with regard to it.


An hon. MEMBER.: Why not?


Haughton Lennox: Because my hon. friend from Rainy River and others would not like it and would raise another point of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman must not refer to the ruling of the Chair.


Haughton Lennox: I am not referring to or questioning the ruling of the Chair and have no reason to question it. I am merely saying that I cannot give some opinions I would like to quote. And there are other opinions in the press, which are equally pertinent, but which I am not at liberty to refer to as they are couched in language too strong, according to the ruling of the Chair. If we could get this matter disposed of in this amicable way, we could go on to another Bill which is exciting a good deal of interest. If the Finance Minister is prepared to announce that he sees the reasonableness of acceding to the very moderate proposition I make, namely, that we shall have a drawn battle for the time being and begin again in great amity to consider the various complicated conditions of the Bill, 4 think we would be expediting public business.


Mr. FIELDING.: As we are not likely to make much progress on the present lines, and as I understand the suggestion to be that, in view of the objections raised by the Prime Minister of Ontario, there should be several days delay to enable him to present Mr. LENNOX.
his views, I am prepared to accept that suggestion provided that assurance is given that the matter will then be dealt with without further difficulty according to the discretion of the House.


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend does not mean that we shall be precluded from legitimate discussion? *


William Stevens Fielding: Provided that discussion be short and quite within reasonable limits. But if it shall be a discussion-I do not want to use the word obstruction-such as we have had to-day, I do not think the suggestion a fair one.


Haughton Lennox: Speaking for myself and probably all the other members, I can assure the hon. minister that there will be nothing in the nature of obstruction.


Richard Blain: It will be understood that a meeting of the Private Bills Committee will be convened.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Richard Blain: Well, yes. But how would it be possible for the representatives of Ontario to appear before the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I think that the gentlemen representing Ontario will have abundant opportunity of presenting their views through my hon. friend, or anybody else who might be interested in the matter.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR.: I might also say that we reserve the right to divide the House upon it.


James Conmee: I understand, from what the Minister of Finance and other gentlemen have said, that it is not to be as

sumed that if the reply from the Ontario government is unfavourable, that is to be made a ground of still further opposition, similar to what we have had before.


Richard Blain: Would not that be good ground?


James Conmee: It may be in the opinion of my hon. friend, but not in the opinion of other hon. gentlemen. I am merely saying that I do not understand the arrangement in that way, or that any reference to Ontario's power is to be set up, and 1 want to know if it is so understood across the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not so understand it. Hon. gentlemen might feel as strongly as they do now on the subject, but I do not understand they would consider it a ground for delaying the matter in order that it might be dealt with in a reasonable time.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that we are to confine our discussion within reasonable limits. But I cannot absolutely say as to what lines we shall take. We shall

present in the best way we can the views of the Ontario government.
Motion agreed to and progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 123) respecting certain letters patent of the American Barlock Company. -Mr. Macdonnell.

Mr. HENDERSON.: I understand that this is a proper time to present a motion which I now desire to submit, as I could only do so while you were in the Chair.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: What Bill does the hon. gentleman refer to?


David Henderson: I refer to order No.
4.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: We have not reached it yet.


David Henderson: I understand you are going to put a motion that you now leave the Chair. If you do, I wish to move an amendment.
Mr. CALVERT moved that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on private Bills.


David Henderson: It is my desire at this stage to move the following motion, and I shall make my remarks after reading the motion:
That order No. 4 Ire discharged, and that Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company as amended by the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders for further consideration and report as to the suff-ficiency of the notices given thereunder.
I make this motion because I understand that the notices that were last published by the Canada Life Assurance Company have never been before the Standing Orders Committee. I may briefly review the proceedings in order that hon. gentlemen who may not have followed that Bill may know exactly what has been done. On the 22nd of March the following motion was made by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Samuel Sharpe):
That the order made this day for the further consideration in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company, be discharged, and that the said Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders for further consideration as to the sufficiency of the notices given therefor.
Now in obedience to that order of the House, the committee met, deliberated and considered the Bill in question, drafted
their report, and presented it to the House in the following words:
Mr. McCraney, from the Select Standing Committee on Standing _ Orders,_ presented the third report of the said committee, which is as follows:-
Pursuant to the order of the House of the 22nd inst., your committee have considered Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company, as reprinted and amended by the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, and find: first, that sections 1 and 3 are clearly within the terms of the notice published; second, that the wording of the notice does not sufficiently indicate the nature of the orders to be granted under section 2; and third, that sections 4 and 5 are not mentioned in either the notice or the petition.
The effect of this report was that the notices given by the Canada Life Assurance Company for their purposes were, so far as clause 2, the important clause, was concerned, entirely sufficient. As a result, the promoter of the Bill, and those interested in the Bill, afterwards decided to publish new notices, which was done. Before the expiration of the five weeks allowed for publication of the notices, the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. Clark), who is in charge of the Bill, moved:
That the order for further consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company, Be discharged, and that the said Bill be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders to inquire and report to this House what notice has been given to the public and to the policy-holders concerning said Bill.
Hon. gentlemen will observe that this resolution did not authorize the Committee on Standing Orders to make any inquiry as to the sufficiency or insufficiency of the notices, but simply to report back to the House what notices had been published. The committee, therefore, in considering their report, simply named the notices that had been published, but expressed no opinion as to whether those notices were sufficient or not. I will read, for the information of the House, a portion of the report, and it will show clearly that what I have stated is contained in the report. The report was presented on the 27th April by Mr. McCoig, in the absence of the chairman, and it is as follows:
Mr. McCoig, from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, presented the fourth report of the said committee, which is as follows:-
Pursuant to the order of the House of the 19th instant, your committee have inquired as to what notice has been given to the public and to policy-holders concerning the Bill (No. 56), and Act respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company, and find as follows, viz.:-

. L That the following notice was published in the ' Canada Gazette ' on the 9th, 16th. 23rd, and 30th days of January and the 6th day of February, 1909; in the Toronto ' News ' on the 22nd and 29th days of January, and on the 5th, 12th and 19th days of February, 1909; and in the Toronto 'Monetary Times' on the 23rd and 30th days of January, and on the 6th, 13th and 20th days of February, 1909, viz.-
Notice is hereby given that application will be made to the parliament of the Dominion of Canada, at the next session thereof, for an Act to amend the Acts relating to the Canada Life Assurance Company by changing the date of the annual meetings, and making necessary changes as to notice of meetings consequent thereon, and providing for any further changes in the date of such meeting, defining the provisions as to division of profits, extending the powers of the company as to holding real estate in Ontario, and for other purposes.



ALEXANDER BRUCE.

[Stage Direction]
The House will observe that this notice was practically set aside by the Standing Orders Committee as being entirely insufficient, because, so far as the important clause of the Bill was concerned, it did not define distinctly and clearly the objects of the petition or of the Bill. Consequently, we are not called upon now to deal with that notice and we must rely upon a subsequent notice that was published. That notice was signed by Alexander Bruce, solicitor of the company. It is as follows:
Canada Life Building,
Toronto, Ontario.
Dated at Toronto, this 4th January, A.D. 1909.	28-5.
2. That the following additional notice was published in the ' Canada Gazette ' and in the Toronto ' News ' respectively, on the 27th day of March, and on the 3rd , 10th, 17th and 24th day9 of April, 1909, viz.:-
Additional Notice.
Notice is hereby given that application will be made to the parliament of the Dominion of Canada, at the present session thereof, for an Act to amend the Acts relating to the Canada Life Assurance Company (1) changing the date of the annual meeting and making necessary changes as to notices of meetings consequent thereon, and providing for any further changes in the date of such meeting; (2) declaring that, in accordance with the uniform practice of the company, the profits in which the participating policy-holders are entitled to share are those realized from the company s life assurance business exclusive of the interest earned on paid up capital and on other moneys at the credit of the shareholders arising from interest so earned or from the shareholders proportion of profits; (3) extending the powers of the company as to holding real estate in Ontario ;	(4) reducing the
denomination of the shares of the capital stock of the company from one hundred pounds (Canadian currency) or four hundred
David Henderson: dollars to the denomination of one hundred dollars each.
ALEX. BRUCE, Solicitor for the Company, Canada Life Building, Toronto.
Dated this 25th March, 1909.	39-5.
3. In addition to the foregoing notices, which were published in accordance with the requirements of rule 90, sections 1, B 2 and C 2, your committee find that the following circular as well as a copy of the Bill as amended by the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, were mailed to each of the participating policy-holders of the company in Canada, Newfoundland, Great Britain and Ireland and the United States, between the 29th day of March, 1909, and the 6th day of April, 1909, in the manner set forth in the declaration of Alexander Gillespie hereto attached.
Then the report gives a copy of a letter addressed to the participating policy-holders by John Hoskin, vice-president of the company, and also a copy ot a letter or certificate by A. G. Ramsay in reference to the intention of the company when the Act of 1879 was being applied for. It also contained a declaration of Mr. Alexander Gillespie as to the mailing of the copies of the Bill and the copies of these letters. My reason for asking that this Bill be referred back to the Committee on Standing Orders is the fact that no declaration, has yet been made, either by the examiner of private Bills or the Committee on Standing Orders, as to whether these notices were sufficient for the purpose or not. I need not read or refer to the rules of this House concerning the notices required io be given. All the members of this House are familiar with the fact that notice must be given and that a reference must be made either to the examiner of private Bills or the Committee on Standing Orders to inform this House whether or not these notices are sufficient for the purpose of the Bill. I might here remark that it is alleged that thirty years ago an error was made in the legislation that took place, and I submit that it would not be wise for this House now in dealing with this Bill to commit what I regard as a manifest error in overlooking the important requirements of the House in regard to the notice and the character of the notice. I submit that as a fair proposition, and I would say that it would be wise for us to refer the Bill back and get a report from the Standing Orders Committee as to whether these notices were sufficient or not.
But, I have another matter to which I desire to refer for a moment. We have this afternoon been discussing the question of provincial rights. There is no doubt that the provinces have a good deal to say with reference to policies of insurance. I believe that the Privy Council has held in a considered judgment, or perhaps in con-

sidered judgments, that an insurance policy comes within 'the words 'property and civil rights-.' Property and civil rights, we must all admit, must be dealt with by the provincial legislatures, and therefore, in addition to any notices that have been given, I submit that notices should be sent to every province in the Dominion of Canada where policies of insurance are held. I desire now to read an order in council that was passed by the Ontario government only a few days ago. I regard it as a very important protest from that government, and I shall place it on 'Hansard' so that every member of the House will be able to read it for himself and have ndtiee of its contents:
Copy of an order in council approved by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor the thirtieth day of April, A.D. 1909. The committee advise that the annexed report of the honourable the Attorney General with reference to the Bill respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company now before the Dominion parliament be approved of by Your Honour and that a despatch be forwarded to the Secretary of State, Ottawa, accompanied by a copy of the said report for the information of the government of the Dominion of Canada.
Certified, S. Lonsdale Capreol, clerk, Executive Council .
I am privately advised that a copy of this order in council was on Saturday last sent to a member of this government, presumedly the Secretary of State, so that I have no doubt the government are now in possession of it, and in all probability may have considered its contents. The order in council reads:
To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council:-
The undersigned has had under consideration the Bill respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company now before the Dominion parliament and respectfully recommends that a despatch he forwarded to the Secretary of State, Ottawa, regarding the said Bill to the following effect:-
The Bill now before parliament regarding the Canada Life Assurance Company, if it becomes law will in effect alter the contract of every policy-holder on the participation plan and largely reduce the amount that he is legally entitled to out of the profits under the existing law. The extent to which such policy-holder will suffer if the Act is passed will be very greatly increased by the action of the directors and their shareholders in having unnecessarily increased the amount of the paid up capital stock from $125,000 to $1,000,000 (see the report of the Royal Commission as to this). An opinion with regard to the law has been obtained by some policyholders from Sir Robert Findlay. It is his opinion that the payments of dividends to the shareholders since 1879 in excess of 10 per cent of the profits of the business of the company have been ultra vires, there being
in his opinion no ground for the contention that the' shareholders are entitled to interest on capital and also to ten per cent of the profits, or to a sufficient part thereof to make up $80,000 a year to be paid them as dividends.
A large number of the policy-holders in the oompany reside in the province and their property and civil rights which are within the jurisdiction of this province would be interfered with by such legislation as is proposed in the present instance. The Bill having only recently passed the Standing Orders Committee, there is not sufficient time now that the session is approaching its close to fully consider the matter, and it is respectfully submitted that the government should procure the postponement of the consideration of the Bill until next session. The rights and the jurisdiction of the province are involved and ample time should be given to the provinces of the Dominion to consider the matter and decide what course should be adopted by them.
It also appears that many of the matters involved in another Bill ((the Life Insurance Bill) now before the House of Commons deal with matters within the exclusive jurisdiction of the province, as it is respectfully submitted that this Bill should also not become law during the present session.
(Signed) J. J. FOY, Attorney General.
Toronto, 30th April, ,1909.
In view of what the Minister of Finance said only a few moments ago I think I can make an appeal to him to pursue in the case of this Bill a course similar to that which he advised in reference to the Michigan Power Company Bill. I submit that this Bill which we are now considering be deferred, that it should not be proceeded with hastily, and that an opportunity should be given to the government of Ontario to be heard. I do not know any better way to enable a representative of the Ontario government to be heard than to refer this Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee, to notify the Ontario government of the day on which that committee will meet, and allow its representative to appear and enter a protest along the lines of the order in council which I have read.
I think this is a reasonable proposition. I therefore submit this motion to you, Mr. Speaker, in the confidence that the government will give it fair consideration, that they will permit all parties to be heard, and that they will not do anything hastily. I am only now dealing with the point as to referring the Bill back to the Committee on Standing Orders in order that it may be dealt with in the usual way.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I submit that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) has shown no reason why this Bill should be referred back to the Committee on Standing Orders. His argument that it should be so referred in order to have the question determined whether the province of Ontario or the Do-

minion has jurisdiction in the matter, is rather a strange one.


David Henderson: I trust the hon. gentleman does not desire to misrepresent me. I certainly stated as plainly as I could that this Bill had only been dealt with by the Standing Order Committee to the extent of preparing a list of the notices. But the committee in no way gave an opinion as to the sufficiency of these notices and I asked that the Bill be sent back to enable the committee to deal with it in that respect.


Alfred Henry Clarke: One reason given by my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) for referring hack the Bill was that the committee might consider whether or not sufficient notice had been given, and the other reason given by him was that an order in council had been passed by the Ontario government in reference to the Bill. 1 now understand my hon. friend to say that he does not set up that order in council as a reason why the Bill should be referred back, and if that is so I will have nothing more to say on that point.


David Henderson: If the Ontario government or the policy-holders, or the members of this House, desired to say whether or not they had sufficient notice, it would give them that opportunity.


Alfred Henry Clarke: No person knows better than my hon. friend whether or not the notice contemplated by the rules has been given or not, and I am surprised at this stage of the session, when every per-on wants to get away, when this Bill has already been twice referred to the Standing Orders Committee, and when it has been before this House for two months, that my hon. friend desired to again retard the passage of the Bill by having it referred back to the Standing Orders Committee. He has not pointed out a single irregularity in the notice. He is a member of the Standing Orders Committee, and he knows well whether or not the notice waB sufficient. It seems to me that there has never been before the House a Bill in regard to which more care has been taken to give public notice, or in which the rules of the House have been more fully complied with.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. member regard the rules of the House as having been complied with when the Standing Orders Committee has reported to this House without saying whether or not the notices were according to the requirements? They have not reported that they examined the Bill and find that the notices have been ample. So that their report is equivalent to no report at all.


Alfred Henry Clarke: The Standing Orders Committee have reported exactly what Mr. A. H. CLARKE.
this House asked them to report, nothing more nor less. It is not the duty of the Standing Orders Committee, in the first instance, to report whether or not the notices aTe sufficient.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the duty of that committee to report whether the notices are sufficient or not.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I would be very glad if my hon. friend, when he speaks of the duty of a committee, would refer to some authority other than his own ipse dixit. 1 do not find that the rules require that. Rule 95 says:
Petitions for private Bills, when received by the House, are to be taken into consideration by the examiner, who shall report to the House in each case the extent to which the requirements of the rules regarding notices have been complied with.
When that is done in the case of any Private Bill, it is put on the Order Paper. A Bill does not go to the Standing Orders Committee at all unless the examiner finds that the rules have not been complied with. In this particular case, the examiner, who is an officer of great experience, found that the rules had been complied with, and so reported to the House. Therefore the Bill came properly before the House and was placed on the Order Paper. Some hon. gentlemen then said that in their opinion the notice was not sufficient, not because it was not inserted in a sufficient number of newspapers or a sufficient number of times, but because the notice relating to some section of the Bill was not sufficiently full to have made the policy-holders and others acquainted with the exact nature of the Bill. Therefore the House sent the Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee, and that committee reported that in their judgment the notice regarding a certain section of the Bill was not sufficient. Thereupon a new notice was given, and the Bill was then sent back to the Committee on Standing Orders to report what had been done. That committee has reported that the notice was inserted for five weeks in the ' Canada Gazette,' and in the newspapers, and was sent to every participating policy-holder in Canada, the United States and Newfoundland, and that copies of it were sent to England to be transmitted to every policy-holder there. I would like the hon. member for Halton to suggest what notice ought to have been given that has not been given.


David Henderson: What I said was that the Standing Orders Committee has not reported to the House whether the notices have been sufficient or not. It has expressed no opinion to guide the House, and my own impression is that the notices have not been sufficient. I do not want to discuss that now, because I think the Com-

mittee on Standing Orders is the proper place to discuss it. But my hon. friend will find that if he is going to proceed with a Bill asking for retroactive legislation, there has been no notice to that effect.


Alfred Henry Clarke: The committee has reported to this House what the House asked it to report. It did not ask the committee to report whether the notices were sufficient or not; it simply asked it to report what notices were given. The committee has done that. The rules of the House say what notice shall be required-five weeks in the ' Canada Gazette,' and one other newspaper at the place of the head office. The committee reports that that has_ been done. 1 do not understand that there is any complaint about the particularity of the notice in regard to clause 2 of the Bill which says:
Declaring that, in accordance with the uniform practice of the company, the profits in which the participating policy-holders are entitled to share are those realized from the company's life insurance business, exclusive of the interest earned on paid-up capital and on other moneys at the credit of the shareholders arising from interest so earned or from the shareholders' proportion of profits.
I think no hon. member will say that that is not full notice, indicating clearly what that particular section of the Bill was to be.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Could my hon. friend give us the exact language of the House in referring the Bill to the Committee?


Alfred Henry Clarke: I have not the page before me, but I remember quite well what it was. It referred the Bill back to report what notice had been given. I submit that we have abundant evidence of ample notice having been given. Therefore it is child's play to refer the Bill back to the Committee at this stage.


Haughton Lennox: I do not think the hon. member who is usually pretty fair, has correctly apprehended or presented what the hon. member for Halton contends for. It is this, if I understand him rightly, that a certain duty is cast upon the Standing Orders Committee, and that duty has not been discharged, and by reason of that the matter should be referred back in order that they should report Jin accordance with the standing rules and orders of the House. Incidentally and very properly the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) pointed out that the manner in which the Standing Orders Committee discharge their duty is not a trivial or unimportant matter but a matter of great importance to the people generally. I am not inquiring as to whether or not they are to blame, but I am rather inclined to think they are not. That is not of so much concern as whether everything has been done that will safeguard the interests of the policy-holders who are so
extremely concerned in this matter. The rule as stated by Bourinot at page 749 is:
Under rule 53 of the Senate and Commons,
' petitions for private Bills, when received by the House, are to be taken into consideration (without special reference) _ by the Committee on Standing Orders, which is to report in. each case whether the rule_ with regard to notice has been complied with.'
I am not losing sight of the fact that we have modified the rules since this was written. But under our present rules, when a matter of this kind is referred to that committee, then the rule as here laid down by Bourinot applies. Under the present rule these petitions do not go to the Standing Orders Committee if favourably reported on by the Examiner of Petitions for Private Bills, and in this case that officer reported that everything required for public safety in reference to a Bill of this kind had been complied with. In this way the Bill came before this House and was referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce where it was investigated. It was only when it came back to this House that attention was called to the inadequacy of the advertisement in reference to section 2 and the absence of advertisement with reference to sections 4 and 5. The House then referred the Bill back to the Standing Orders Committee on the 22nd of March. The item in the votes and proceedings is:
On motion of Mr. Sharpe (Ontario), it was ordered, that the order made this day for further consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill (No. 56) An Act respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company, be discharged, and that the said Bill be referred to the Select 'Standing Committee on Standing Orders for further consideration as to the efficiency of the notices given therefor.
That is what the Standing Orders Committee is for, not to report to us as to the facts which come before it, because we can consider those facts as well as they can, but to consider whether or not, as a matter of procedure and of law and justice the notices, which have been given are sufficient. We were then beginning to get on the right track through the efforts and the astuteness of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) and on March 25 we find this in the Votes and Proceedings:
Mr. McCraney, from the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders, presented the third report of the said committee, which is as follows:-
Pursuant to the order of the House of the 22nd instant, your committee have considered Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company, as reprinted and amended by the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, and find:

Now you will see what the duty of the Standing Committee is, and they recognized it at this time when they reported back to the House.
That sections 1 and 3 are clearly within the terms of the notice as published.
That is they give their findings as a court, they give their judgment and find that sections 1 and 3 were within the notice.
2.	That the wording of the notice does not sufficiently indicate the nature of the powers to be granted under section 2.
That was the important section, so that down to that point you have it that there had not been sufficient notice of what the company were applying for under their very important section No. 2, and
3.	That sections 4 and 5 are not mentioned in either the notice or the petition. .
Thus we have the rule I have read, we have the recognition of that rule in the order made on March 22, and again in the report made on March 25. Thus from the time that the hon. member for North Ontario took it in hand until March 25, the matter was regular, it was getting on the right track again but it went wrong again and the next proceeding, I am sorry to say, was on motion of my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. A. H. Clarke), and I must say that although it was not noticed at the time, probably this led to the difficulty we are in now, not of course intentionally, but I would suggest to my hon. friend that since he got us into this difficulty he is in duty bound to try and get us out of it again. His motion speaks for itself. We know that in tne meantime certain advertisements had been printed and certain steps taken to publish what it was then said was the object of the company. I am not prepared to admit that this notice was in any shape sufficient. A colorable notice, a notice calculated to lull and deceive, a notice which could never have been intend to apprise the public of what was actually wanted by the company, was again issued and the hon. member for South Essex (Mr. A. H. Clarke) asked that the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders should deal with that question. We knew that we had to refer it to them. What ought we to do? We had practically a new Bill. Two provisions of that Bill had never been advertised before. One of them, the most important one, it was found had not been sufficiently advertised and so having come to this House it was necessary it should then go to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders. Why should it not go to that committee according to the rule I have referred to? It was not sent to them in that way and until it was


Haughton Lennox: sent to them in that way this House had not done its duty by the public.


Mr. TALBOT.: That is all right.


Haughton Lennox: I am glad to have for once concurrence of my hon. friend. On the motion of the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Clarke), the order for the further consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company was discharged and referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders to inquire and report to this House what notice had been given the public and policy-holders. The order was not to inquire and report on the sufficiency of the notice, but to tell us what we could have found out by going to any newspaper, what we knew before that order was made, namely, what had been advertised in the press. There was the beginning of the second difficulty and that is where we are now. The Select Standing Committee might have done better, but we cannot complain of them because probably they might have done worse. In fact, they did nothing. They reported to us, in the terms of that order, that certain advertisements had been made, giving the dates and a copy of the notice. I called the attention of the right hon. gentleman who leads the House to the fact that on the 25th of March the committee reported that no sufficient advertisement had been made. The matter was then at an end, so far as the progress of this Bill is concerned. It had to begiu over again, if the Bill was to be dealt with. The Insurance Company then, of its own motion, began to advertise; and after they had done so this resolution was introduced, which does not comply with the rules of the House. The company did not present a new petition. They simply advertised, as they saw fit, and I can show to my right hon. friend that this second advertisement was no more honest than the first. Under these circumstances, there can be no doubt as to the duty of this House. Our duty is to send the Bill back to the Committee on Standing Orders and have that committee report to us regarding the sufficiency of the last notice issued.


Mr. PORTER.: It occurs to me that if the House proceeds with the motion now before the Chair and goes into committee on this subject, it will be defeating the very object for which notice of this kind of legislation is given. The first notice was passed upon and found insufficient. The company then went on to give further notice. What is the object of the rule requiring notice to be "Wen? It is that the parties interested should have an opportunity of being heard regarding the proposed legislation. There are two parties interested, the company and the policy holders. The companv has been heard. But we

are asked to move the House into commit-tee_ to consider the Bill without giving the policy-holders any opportunity of giving their opinion upon it. If we are to proceed with this measure without giving that opportunity, we shall be defeating the very object of the notice. In all justice and fairness, the Bill ought to be referred back t*>
the Committee on Standing Orders in order to give the policy-holders interested, or the provincial government on their bejhalf, an opportunity of discussing the provisions of the Bill. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has offered a fair and reasonable opportunity to accomplish that object, by asking that the Bill be referred back to the Committee on Standing Orders, in order that that committee may report whether sufficient notice has been given, and if the provincial government or the policy-holders should see fit to appear before the committee and represent their case, a special report might be made, although that report would not be binding on this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I venture to suggest that, although this Bill was referred back to the Committee on Standing Orders, to ascertain whether the notices were sufficient or not, that committee has not reported. The duty of that committee was to report whether or not that notice was sufficient. Under our new rules, the first procedure is to present a petition and have that taken into consideration by the examiner of petitions, whose duty it is to report to the House in each case the extent to which the requirements of the rules regarding notice have been complied with. It transpires that the House was not satisfied that the proper notice had been given and that the rules had been complied with. After the consideration of that by the House it was referred back to the Standing Orders Committee for further examination. Now if the examiner of petitions were not satisfied the rule says:
In every case where the notice is reported by the examiner to have been insufficient or otherwise defective, the petition shall be taken into consideration without special reference by the Committee on Standing Orders, who shall report to the House recommending the course to be taken in consequence of such insufficiency of notice or other defects therein.
Now did they do that? Did they recommend to the House what should be done in consequence of insufficiency of notice or other defects? They evidently did not. Then if they did not, the Standing Orders Committee did not do what the rule lays down that they should do, and therefore the House has a right to refer the Bill back to the same committee and ask them to report recommending the extent to which the requirements of the rules regarding notice have been complied with. Now it is quite clear, because they say so themselves, that
the notice was not sufficient, that a proper notice was not given, but they did not recommend to the House what the House should do in consequence thereof. Now in view of the fact that we have not such a report recommending the House what to do, nor have they reported clearly that the proper notices were not sufficient, or partially sufficient, then I say we have a right to refer it back to them, and get a proper report. Bourinot says that the House shall appoint a standing orders committee whose duty it shall be:
The said committee shall be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may bew referred to them by the House.
All these petitions were referred to that committee by the House previously to the change in our rules. If that committee found these petitions defective in any way, the committee are to report from time to time their observations thereon. What observations? Whether the notice has been complied with or not? Did they give their opinion as to whether that rule had been complied with? Not at al . They gave us the report of their observations, and their observations were to the effect that the rule had not been complied with, because they referred to certain clauses of the Bill of which no notice whatever was given in the ' Gazette,' and they referred to other clauses where there was not a strict compliance with the rule. Therefore their observations and opinions thereon were not given fully to this House. It is therefore, in my opinion, the duty of the House to refer it back to that committee and ask them to make a proper report to the House as to their observations or findings, whether the rule requiring public notice to be given has been complied with in that second notice.


Mr. J. D. REID.: I understand it is necessary under rule 90, subsection C, that all such notices, whether inserted in the ' Canada Gazette ' or in a newspaper, shall be published at least once a week for a period of five consecutive weeks. But the five weeks was not allowed to elapse before the Bill was up before the Standing Orders Committee. I think this House should consider whether we are to allow Bills to go through in that way. I take it for granted that five weeks means that five full weeks must elapse before the Bill can be properly presented before the committee. The fifth week was only started, only one day had passed when the Bill was presented here. I think this Bill is a very important one. There are thousands and thousands of policy-holders throughout the Dominion to whom this notice was perhaps sent; but what time have they had to consider the importance of the Bill? One gentleman states that he never got a notice; at the

same time where a Bill like this is going to affect so many policy-holders and so many heirs that might receive benefits from this, I think the Canada Life Assurance Company should have given the policy-holders longer time, should have given them some months in which they might thoroughly understand what it meant; let them get together and give them an opportunity of stating their position before a committee of the House. The whole thing has been rushed through. If we allow this Bill to _ go through without the full five weeks notice, I think we will be establishing a very dangerous precedent. I cannot see where the Canada Life are going to lose anything by letting it stand over until another session. By that time every policy-holder in the Dominion will understand exactly the situation, and know that at the next session of the House the matter may come up again and be threshed out after ample notice has been given to the policy-holders. I think the government should allow it to stand over until the House meets in November, and then every policy-holder in Canada will have had ample notice. I do not understand exactly how this Bill affects the policy-holder, but I judge from the opposition that is being made to this Bill, that it is unfair to rush it through at this late date in the session. I hope the government will accept the motion of the hon. member for Halton, and let the Bill be withdrawn.


George Taylor: With regard to serving notices on every policy-holder. I may say that I am a policy-holder and I received no notice.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There are a number of gentlemen on both sides of the House who regard the additional notice as insufficient. But that question should not occupy the time of the House, that is particularly the function of the Standing Orders Committee to look into. Consequently I think that this motion is well put, and that the Bill should be referred back to the Committee on Standing Orders to consider the sufficiency or insufficiency of the notice. It is true, as the hon. member for South Essex says, that the committee reported all that the House ordered them to report, but the House did not order them to report enough. It was on the motion of the hon. member for South Essex that the specific reference was made to the Standing Orders Committee and that reference was not sufficient, because it did not ask the Standing Orders Committee to report upon the sufficiency or insufficiency of the notice. The time of the House should not be occupied with the consideration of the question of whether a notice is sufficient or not. We would have to examine the notice, we would have to examine the Mr. J. D. REID.
report of the committee brought down, and that might occupy some hours of the time of this House. I think the proper course to pursue is that which has been suggested by my hon. friend from Halton, that we send it back to the Standing Orders Committee to report upon. I venture to express the opinion that the promoter of the Bill would make more progress if he proceeds along the lines of least resistance, because, if he attempts to railroad this Bill through the House, he will find considerable opposition. This company has been the same as it is now for the past thirty years, and I do not see why there should be such undue haste in order to legislate the rights of 35,000 policy-holders away and transfer their profits into the pockets of the shareholders. I think the House should adopt the motion of my hon. friend from Halton and refer this Bill to the Standing Orders Committee for a proper report.
Amendment (Mr. Henderson) negatived.


Haughton Lennox: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move ano ther motion.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: He is not leaving it.


Haughton Lennox: If hon. gentlemen desire to facilitate the business of the House they should try to observe some rules of decorum. It is all right to have a few jokes but there is business to be done. It would be just as well if some hon. gentlemen would behave themselves. I only desire to say a few words in support of the motion which I am about to make. It is an important one, and I think it is even more im portant than the one which was moved by my hon. friend from Halton a moment ago I propose to move that:
Order No. 4 be discharged and that Bill (No. 56) an Act respecting the Canada Lifp Assurance Company, as amended by the Com mittee on Banking and Commerce, be refer red back to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce for further considera tion and report.
It will only be necessary to say a few words in support of this motion, although it is one that involves a good deal. A few weeks ago it was decided in this House that the advertisement had not been sufficient, that as regards the most important clause in the Bill no sufficient notice had been given and that, as regards two other clauses, no notice at all had been given. It is of the essence and fairness of a parliamentary contract, such as is now proposed, that every shareholder should have an opportunity of knowing exactly what the company propose and should have ample opportunity of presenting his views to the committee which has the matter in charge. That is the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce. We know that in this House there is no opportunity for any per

son to come and present his views, but that in the committee, now that certain notoriety has attached to this Bill, there will no doubt be a great number of people who will want to present their opposition to this pro posed legislation. Be that as it may, 1 need not elaborate the argument, which is this. There would be no object in further advertising this Bill, no object in giving notice to the public, unless we gave the public an opportunity to be heard. It would be the veriest farce to insist upon the most elaborate advertisement and then give no opportunity to interested policy-holders to present their views. It is said that this is the most perfect advertisement that possibly could be given, although I find three hon. gentlemen in this House within reach of my hand who say that they received no notice, notwithstanding the fact that they are policy-holders. It is said that the most elaborate advertisement has been published in this case, but it would be idle to have that advertisement given if there were no opportunity given the public of coming before a select standing committee and enunciating their views. Only one word more in reference to this. I think my right hon. friend the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will agree in the propriety of giving the policy-holders an opportunity of being heard. I think he will agree that now that the advertisement is said to have reached a great number of policy-holders, these policy-holders shall have an opportunity of coming before the Committee on Banking and Commerce and saying whether or not they think this- legislation ought to pass. They have never had any opportunity.
I am sorry, inasmuch as we have rather forced the views of the Ontario government upon the House to-day, that I have to refer again to the attitude of the Ontario government in this regard. Why should not the Ontario govenment be the special guardian of the interests of the people of Ontario? _ They surely have a mandate to act in that capacity. They have a sufficient majority at their back to make them astute in endeavouring to .safeguard the interests of the people whom they so abundantly represent. I will not read the whole of the order in council that has been referred to to-night, but I will Tead a clause or two that I specially wish to draw to the attention of the House. In the first part it is set out that it has been transmitted to the Dominion government. Therefore it is the less necessary that I should read the whole of it, but they say that:
The undersigned has had under consideration the Bill respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company now before the Dominion parliament, and respectfully recommends that a despatch be forwarded to the Secretary of State, Ottawa, regarding the Bill to the following effect:-
The Bill now before parliament regarding the Canada Life Assurance Company if it becomes law will in effect alter the contract of every policy-holder on the participation plan and largely reduce the amount that he is legally entitled to out of the profits under the existing law.
The extent to which such policy-holders will suffer if the Act is passed will be very greatly increased by the action of the directors and their shareholders in having unnecessarily increased the amount of the paid-up capital stock from $125,000 to $1,000,000 (see report of Eoyal Commission as to this). An opinion with regard to the law has been obtained by some policy-holders from Sir Robert Findlay.
They then proceed to set out in substance the opinion given, which I need not read to the House at this stage. The order continues as follows:
A large number of the policy-holders in the company reside in the province, and their property and civil rights which are within the jurisdiction of this province will be interfered with by such legislation as is proposed in the present instance.
Property and civil rights and provincial rights ! There is no more serious way in which we can invade the civil rights of a people than by saying that after a solemn contract has been entered into and has been sanctioned by parliament and has existed for thirty years, a few people may come before the House of Commons and before the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce and endeavour to put through a Bill which shall deprive these people of their rights and declare that which is known not to have been the law is the law.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Alter the contract?


Haughton Lennox: Alter the contract.
The Bill having only recently passed the Standing Orders Committee, there is not sufficient time now that the session is approaching its close to fully consider the matter, and it is respectfully submitted that the government should procure the postponement of the consideration of the Bill until next session. The rights and the jurisdiction of the province are involved and. ample time should be given to the provinces of the Eom-inion to consider the matter and decide what course should be adopted by them.
That order in council was passed on the 30th April and said to have been forwarded to the Dominion government, so that I presume the government is in receipt of it. Well, if I am to assume from the Prime Minister that the government has not received it that only emphasizes the extreme haste with which this legislation is being promoted. I shall take the liberty of sending this order in council over to the Prime Minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: As my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) has appealed to me I must tell him I am very sorry I cannot

agree with any of his arguments. This Bill was referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee; it was examined by that committee and found satisfactory. When it came back to the House it was suggested by some members that the notice to the policy-holders had not been sufficient and that it was advisable to again refer the Bill to the Standing Orders Committee. I must say that it seemed to me that the original notices were amply satisfactory and quite sufficient for any intelligent man to ascertain what was the purpose of this Bill. However, some members of the House thought differently, and I did not interpose my own personal opinion to prevent the Bill being referred to the Standing Orders Committee. The last argument of my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) is that the Ontario government has sent to us an order in council in which they say that this is a matter of provincial rights.


Haughton Lennox: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then I do not understand it.


Haughton Lennox: They represent that this Bill affects a large portion of the people of Ontario; it is a matter of civil rights.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes; it concerns a certain number of the people of Ontario and also a certain number of the people of Quebec, and of Nove Scotia, and of New Brunswick, and of all the provinces, but I do not concede that the Ontario government has any right at all or any reason or any power to interfere in this matter. The Ontario government has the right to look after the business of the province of Ontario, which is confided to it by the British North America Act. I have been a friend of provincial rights in Ontario, and I had to defend them in my own humble way with the support of my friends around me, against the aggressions of hon. gentlemen opposite. In this matter the Ontario government has no standing at all, and it seems to me that the appeal made by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) cannot be entertained.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let me ask the right hon. gentleman if it was anything more than a farce to have fresh notices given to the public if thje public were not to be allowed an opportunity to be heard on this Bill. If you advertise the sitting of a court you state where the court is to be held, in order that the parties may appear there, but in this case what was the use of advertising if the people affected were not to be given an opportunity to appear. The Prime Minister told us he did not consider it necessary to give new notices, but he was an assenting party to that procedure and being an assenting party he should now Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
give the people an opportunity to be heard. The only place they can be heard is before the committee or at the bar of the House, and nobody suggests that. As to the standing of the provincial government in thi3 matter, I apprehend that in the other provinces, as in Ontario, tne provincial governments _ are the guardians of the infants in each province. The rights and claims of the widows and orphans against the Canada Life Assurance Company are naturally in the guardianship of the provincial governments, and in that aspect the provincial government has something to say as to the amount of insurance that should be recovered on the death of the bread winner of a family. What possible excuse can there be for saying that an opportunity should not be given to some one to represent before a committee of the House that large class of people who are interested in this matter. Notice was given for five weeks to the world at large, and the province of Ontario is a large part of the world at large, and the government of Ontario have taken action. Unless this Bill is referred back to committee, the whole procedure of ordering new notices to be given is ridiculous. I cordially support the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox).


Mr. TURRIFF.: I am opposed to this Bill and to tne principle of the Bill, and I am specially opposed to its being forced on the House at the present time when the policy-holders-the men who are most interested in the Bill-have not had an opportunity of coming before this House and presenting their views. The Bill was referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce, where it was dealt with to a certain extent; it came back to the House and it was found that no notice had been given, that any shareholder could become cognizant of, that it was proposed by the Canada Life Assurance Company to ask for legislation that would be retroactive and that would impair every contract that had been made with the 40,000 policyholders during the last thirty years. It was decided that the Bill had not been properly advertised. It was sent back to the committee, and, as the last speaker has pointed out, it has been re-advertised; and if this Bill is not to be referred back to the Banking and Commerce Committee, why was it advertised? Simply as a farce to deceive the policy-holders? Is this government going to be responsible for that sort of thing-to advertise a Bill, and not give the men interested in it an opportunity to come before a committee of this House and lay their case before it? To my mind it is a most peculiar proceeding. What is the great haste to push this Bill through the House? It has been on the statute book for the last thirty years and

the Canada Life has been doing business under it for that length of time. Will it hurt the Canada Life to wait six months more? In the ordinary course this House will be called together again in six months from now. We are in the dying days' of the session. Why not let the Bill stand over till next session, and then give the policy-holders an opportunity to get together and organize and come before the Banking and Commerce Committee and present their views? If they are given that opportunity, and cannot put up a good case, I for one will not have any further opposition to offer to the Bill. But. Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Bill is bad in itself. There are contracts that have been made by this company during the past thirty years. Is there one word in either the first or second advertisement that would give the ordinary policy-holder to understand that this legislation proposed to be retroactive and took away the rights he was supposed to have had during all those years? I have the word of the president of the company that there are about 40,000 policy-holders, and there are hundreds and thousands of these who believe that they are being robbed, that their profits are being switched from them and taken by the shareholders. I am not going to say that that view is correct. I am not going to say that the views I hold, and they are pretty strong views, are correct. But I am going to say that when there are thousands of men who. believe that they have a grievance against the company, and this government comes in and says to those men that they shall not be allowed to come before a committee of this House and state their grievance, every one of those men will always bear in his mind the impression that he had a grievance. I have here a couple of policies of my own, and I believe the profits have been taken from those policies which should have come to them; and if this government passes this legislation this session without giving me and other policyholders an opportunity to come before the Banking and Commerce Committee and place our views before it, there is no power on earth that will make me believe in the future that I have not been robbed. And I do not stand alone in this matter. During the last month, since my name has been to a certain extent connected with the opposition to this Bill, dozens of policy-holders of this company in this city have come to me and have presented their views. I do not say that all the policyholders share these views. There may be many who are perfectly satisfied; but outside of the members of this House, I have not heard one man who is a policy-holder express himself as satisfied with the conditions-why? Because during the past
fifteen years, since this company has come under the present management, the profits of the policy-holders have simply dwindled down year after year; and these policy-holders would like to have some proper explanation of why a policy which twenty or twenty-five or thirty or forty years ago would earn $25 of profits in a year can now earn only $10. That is something the company ought to explain. That is something that if not explained will always stick in the minds of the policy-holders; and if the government does not give the policy-holders an opportunity to present their side of the case, the government will come in for a great deal of very adverse criticism. Why should this company be given all the consideration and the policy-holders none? Is there any good reason why the 40,000 policy-holders should have no consideration at all at the hands of this government or this parliament and this company get all the consideration? Just let me contrast two eases. A few years ago we had a Royal Commission on insurance, which made a report and submitted a draft Bill. The government, some three sessions or two sessions ago, introduced that Bill into the House. What would you have thought if an attempt had been made to rush that Bill through the House without giving the insurance companies an opportunity to come before the Banking and Commerce Committee and present their side of the case? Are the 40,000 policy-holders of this company entitled to less consideration at the hands of the government than this company and other insurance companies? I hope that that will never be said. What consideration has been shown to these insurance companies? In compliance with their request, this insurance Bill has been put off from year to year. It has been before the Banking and Commerce Committee for weeks and months; we have spent the last two sessions working at it, and the company now under discussion has during this session had four men here for weeks and months working to get that Bill into proper shape. I quite agree that they are perfectly right, and I will be just as ready to oppose any idea of passing a measure by shutting them out as I am opposed to shutting out the policy-holders on this occasion. There is the treatment that has been accorded to the companies and why should less good treatment be accorded to the policy-holders? I think they are entitled to some consideration If this legislation is passed this session without giving the policy-holders an _ opportunity to appear before the committee and represent their views, then so far as I am concerned politically, it will put me out of business. I have the honour or misfortune, whichever you like to call it, of



representing a constituency that has a Conservative majority and I have no hopes in the future of helping it out by redistribution simply because I am bounded on one side by the United States and on the other by the province of Manitoba and with the increase of population all I can do is to have the Liberal end of my constituency cut off. I was offered another constituency but I preferred to take the hard end and take the hard fight and I did it. If this resolution is passed and hundreds of my supporters on both sides are done out of their right to come before this House and before the Banking and Commerce Committee and present their views, even if they are wrong, every one of these men will have a grievance against the government and will vote against me. That puts me out of business. That of course is a very small matter and I do not mention it as of any great importance but I wish to tell my hon. friends on this side of the House there are a good many others in the same position.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Not many.


John Gillanders Turriff: When the hon. member gets through I shall try to go on. There are a good many members in exactly the same position. A matter of a hundred votes makes a great difference and it is well to consider that phase of the question. We are piling up a grievance now that these men will remember, and I can assure you from what I have heard in the past month that this matter sinks far deeper into the minds of policy-holders of the Canada life than you have any idea of. I have men, men who did not wish their names mentioned, and you would be surprised at some of them, who have told me that they look on this Bill as a most iniquitous piece of legislation. One man told me that if this legislation passed he would want to sell his policy for what he could get for it, because he could have no confidence that this company would not come farward in ten years time asking for legislation and getting it that would deprive him perhaps of more than they are taking from him at this time. I think that is an extreme view and do not take that view, but it is held and I repeat that if you do not give these men an opportunity to present their claims they will have a just grievance and nothing will remove from their minds the feeling that they have been improperly dealt with. There can be only two reasons for pushing this through. One is that if it is not pushed through now it will be more difficult to get it through next session.


George Taylor: Perhaps this is the dividend year.


John Gillanders Turriff: If that is the case it is a very good reason for delaying it. If the


John Gillanders Turriff: Bill is as good as the Canada Life people say it is, what is their objection to having it go before the Banking and Commerce Committee, and allowing the policy-holders to present their views. If their contention is right and fair and just, the Bill will go through, and there will be no difficulty, but if the Bill is such that a thorough investigation into it and a thorough presentation of the case of the policy-holders would prevent it going through, is the government justified in pushing it through in the dying days of this session, without giving the policy-holders a single opportunity to come before the committee and present their views? That is the strong ground I take, not on the merits of the Bill. I have no uncertain feeling on the merits of the Bill but it is not on that ground that I am opposing its passage. These policy-holders, 40,000 of them, are depending on these policies for their wives and their children when they have passed over the great divide. There will be 40,000 widows probably one day depending on these policies, and there will be over 100,000 orphans-


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: All on one day?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


John Gillanders Turriff: -Depending on these policies. Surely in a matter of such importance it is not asking too much-and I appeal to the fairness and the good sense ut my honoured leader that it is surely not asking too much to request that this particular Bill stand over until next session and that the policy-holders should be given an opportunity to come before the committee and present their views of the case. I have heard it said: If this Bill is not passed this session, why there will be litigation! The only logical conclusion you can come to from this is that if this company has been doing wrong, has been going contrary to the law for thirty years, then you should pass legislation to make their course right for the past thirty years, give them the right to do wrong for all time to come and prevent for ever anybody taking action to obtain redress of their wrongs. The Minister of Justice the other day dealt very fully with this question and either he or some other member stated, while we were discussing the Cobalt Mining Company's deal, that the government of Ontario had no right to step in and pass legislation to do away with litigation between two parties, and I heard the statement-I will not say by the Minister of Justice-that the provincial government had no more right.to pass legislation that would prevent any man who felt aggrieved from going into litigation than to interfere in a case that had already been started. In this ease litigation has already been started so if we apply the rule laid down by the Minister of

Justice the government has no right to step in and prevent that litigation. If they have no right what right has this government or any government on earth to stand between me and the men who I believe have done me an injustice? I believe they have done me an injustice. Give me an opportunity next fall with other shareholders to place my views before the Banking and Commerce Committee and if I can be shown that no injustice is being done, that this is right, then I shall have nothing more to say. This is not the first time I have been up against this company in trying to get some information. For the last seven or eight years I have been trying to get some satisfactory answer to the question why the dividends on my policies have been cut down to almost nothing. I have never been able to get any satisfactory explanation. I could get a lot of smooth talk by insurance men who knew all about the subject while I did not know very much about it, but I never could get any reason that appealed to my sense of justice. I may be altogether wrong, but I want them to explain to me and their policy-holders how it is these profits have been so small. A great many of the policy-holders have made this complaint to me. Take the president of this company alone-and he is the president of half a dozen other companies and on the directorate of as many more- he draws a salary of $20,000 a year.


An hon. MEMBER.: What has that to do with this Bill?


John Gillanders Turriff: I propose to discuss this Bill in my own way. That $20,000 comes out of the pockets of_the policy-holders, who otherwise would get the benefit. That is what it has to do with this Bill. And the president has two sons in this company, one of whom draws $15,000 a year and the other $20,000,' making $50,000 per year to one family. That is what many of the policy-holders object to. What would this country think of the Prime Minister, if he voted himself $20,000 a year and then gave his two nearest relatives $15,000 and $20,000 respectively, and our Prime Minister devotes all his time to the work .and works hard. What would this side of the House say, if the leader of the opposition should come into power and immediately vote himself $20,000 a year and his two nearest relatives $15,000 and $20,000 per year? Would we not make the House resound with our denunciations? Why we would raise the roof off it and make every platform ring from the Atlantic to the Pacific. And remember there are over a million voters to pay those salaries, and those men to whom they would pay them give all their time to the work, whereas there are only 35 or 40 thousand policyholders paying these other men who do not give up all their time to their particular 1721
offices. That is one reason given by policyholders why their profits have been so small during the past fifteen years. There is a general feeling among the policyholders of the Canada Life that things have been manipulated in a very nice, smooth way, but in such a manner that the profits that should go to the policyholders do not go to them. That is the feeling abroad and that feeling will not down until those policy-holders are given the opportunity to organize and put their case before a committee of this House; and that they cannot do this session. They could not even do it properly if this Bill were referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee. There would be a small opportunity then to do something, but it would only be a makeshift. What I ask is that this legislation be allowed to stand over. If the Bill be a good one, as the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Clarke) says it is and as the government claim, there will be no trouble in putting it through then; but if it be forced through now there will be a great deal of dissatisfaction, as many of us will have Teason to know before the next general elections. A good deal has been said about the increase of capital. In 1900, the capital was increased from $125,000 to $1,000,000. At that time there was no need of more capital. The company had millions to its credit, it has millions invested, and remember that all that money is the money of the policy-holders, and only 10 per cent of the profits really belongs to the company. There were millions to the credit of the company, and the shareholders had their $125,000 paid up and were drawing 30 per cent to 70 per cent per annum on it. Was that not good enough? Should they not have been satisfied with that? And remember that the men who are drawing these big salaries own over 50 per cent, of the stock. Surely they ought to have been satisfied, but no, they increased their capital. They claimed that it was necessary, not so much on account of the money, but to have a better standing in the old country and the United States. Possibly there was something in that claim, but at all events they paid in this extra money, and a good many policy-holders believe that was done to benefit the shareholders at the expense of the policy-holders. I am inclined to that belief myself, but I am not sure that I am right. If the case were put before the committee and explanations made, I might be easily convinced that in that respect I am altogether wrong. I feel strongly on this question because I have a large number of policy-holders in my constituent, and it is not individually or personally that I ask my right hon. leader to put this measure off until next fall, but on behalf of the 40,000 people I represent in this House. It is in their interest I ask that this legislation be delayed until next ses-

sion. Remember this is a matter of vital importance to thousands of people in this country-men on salaries who have paid in all their savings of a life time, whose savings are locked up in policies in this company. They are the men who feel aggrieved and who want to be represented. Why treat the corporations with one kind of justice and the policy-holders with another? Why not give even-handed justice to both? This is just a little trouble between the policy-holders and the company, why should not the government leave us alone to settle our own difficulties without interfering? We will settle them and there will be very little trouble about it. All we want is a good explanation. I want to make that point as clear as possible. I am not discussing the Bill on its merits at all, but I am insisting on the right of the policy-holders -the men who have put up the $33,000,000 invested by the company-to be given a hearing before the committee. I leave it to the fairness of the Prime Minister to say whether or not this legislation should stand over for six months. The company have worked for 30 years under their present incorporation, why not let them work under it six months longer? I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister to consider thi3 carefully and see whether he cannot let this legislation stand until six months, and I venture to say it will go through then with one-tenth part of the difficulty it will take to put it through now.


Arthur Meighen: I have a few observations to make on this motion, and in so doing I purpose to keep religiously away from discussing the Bill on its merits. If the_ House will do me the credit of believing that I can for a moment discuss a question entirely apart from partisan consideration, I assure them that is my intention. If I understand the right hon. the Prime Minister correctly, and that he is determined to force this Bill on the consideration of this House, aside from the Banking and Commerce Committee, that is a course the most utterly inexplicable on the part of the government since I have been a member. Some few weeks ago when this Bill was before us and was referred back to the Standing Orders Committee, and when they reported the Bill had not been sufficiently advertised, who would have understood when a further advertisement was ordered by this House, that that advertisement had no purpose at all? There might have been some difference of opinion as to the last motion, it might have been of a technical oharacter; but, surely, on this motion that, after this Bill had been advertised for the purpose of making its contents known to the public, surely on this motion that proposes to give them a chance to be heard, there should be no difference of opinion. No. hon. gentleman Mr. TURRIFF.
has ever attempted to answer the query as to what object there could have been in advertising this measure to the country if the country is not to be heard. The Prime Minister avoided that point in his speech. Now where does the government stand? The government of Ontario come before this House, and they present a protest against this Bill. I do not conceive the government of Ontario in doing so made any claim to this House by passing the legislation embodied in Bill 56 invaded at all provincial jurisdiction, but really acted on the principle of the government of Ontario is in a sense the custodian of the civil rights of the citizens of Ontario, and as such custodian it protests against this Bill, which they claim is an invasion of those civil rights. Now the Prime Minister says, we will not go before the Banking and Commerce Committee, we will not let the policy-holders be heard there. If that is the decision of this government, then by * what method could the government of Ontario ever be heard before this House, except by the very method they have adopted? If we are to shut out all representatives before the Banking and Commerce Committee, which I understood was the medium by which the public could be heard before parliament, then the method adopted by the government of Ontario is the only method any government or any individual could adopt to make its or his opinions known in this* House. Therefore the government are in this position: If a provincial government comes to us by petition asking that this legislation be not passed, we resent it and we also deny to the people represented by that government the right to come before us in any other way. Surely that is tyranny personified. I say the action of the government in this respect is inexplicable to me, and I hope some good reason will be given for it before this matter is disposed of.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I am glad to have heard the argument of my learned friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), and also of the other hon. gentlemen who are so strongly opposed to the Bill before the House. A good many speak of it as being inexplicable. From my understanding of the question, it is inexplicable to me that a Bill designed to do a simple and ordinary act of justice, as this Bill is designed to do, should be resisted in the vicious manner in which this Bill is being resisted by certain pnities.


Arthur Meighen: I did not say the Bill v>:i.i inexplicable, I said the action of the government was inexplicable.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I was not referring to my hon. friend. I was saying that it

appeared inexplicable to me that where people do understand the Bill, they are putting up such a strenuous opposition. I have not heard, even in the heated argument of the hon. member for Assinihoia, one cogent reason against the passing of this Bill. He has made many strong statements about what the policy-holders say; I have heard just as strong statements from the policy-holders saying the government would not do its duty, saying it would be a great loss to and undoing of the policyholders, if the present Bill were not passed, and giving strong reasons why it should pass at this session. Now what is this Bill for? The object of the Bill is a simple one. The Canada Life Company come to this parliament, which created the company, the only legislature, the only tribunal which can deal with the matter, and say that in the legislation which was passed in 1879 at the instance of the company, words were used which, in the opinion of an eminent counsel in England, it is said, do not bear the interpretation which it was intended they should bear by the company who promoted it. Now if there was a mistake, if the interpretation of Sir Robert Findlay is correct, I entertain not the slightest doubt, I am positively convinced, that the interpretation which is sought to be put upon the Act of 1879 is absolutely foreign to the intention of any person present at the time, foreign to the understanding of the directors and of the policyholders from that time to the present.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would not the courts so decide, and then what is the need of your Bill?


Alfred Henry Clarke: I will come to that point presently. I was saying that I am convinced that there is a mistake, and that to pass this Bill is to do an act of simple justice. If the legislation were not a statute, if it were a contract, the terms thereof could be reformed by the court, because in that case the court would have jurisdiction to reform. I am satisfied also, not only that it is an act of common justice to the shareholders, but it is an act of the greatest importance to the policy-holders of this company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If that is so, why not let the Banking and Commerce Committee hear the policy-holders say that for themselves?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Will my hon. friend wait till I make my argument? I am satisfied that, however much this Act is in the interest of the shareholders of the Canada Life Company much more is it in the interest of the policy-holders; because if there is some temporary disarrangement in the dividends paid to the shareholders, that is a matter in which the shareholders can protect themselves and recoup themselves. But if the
directors or shareholders refuse to exercise the rights which they have and decline to declare profits in the future, or if, having cut down the dividends, an incentive to make a successful company does not exist, then it is the policy-holders in respect of their profits that must suffer, because the amount of profits they receive is intimately bound up in the success of this company. Now, let us look at the history of the company in Canada.


George Taylor: I rise to a point of order. Is it pertinent to the question before the Chair for the hon. gentleman to give a history of the company?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The motion before the Chair is to refer this Bill to the Select Committee on Bankine and Commerce. The hon. member is giving reasons, I presume, why that should or should not be done. I do not think a detailed discussion of the Bill would be in order at this stage.


Alfred Henry Clarke: It was my intention to adduce arguments why this Bill should be proceeded with at once. If I go too wide of the mark, of course I will be called to order. I did not hear my hon. friends, who were so enthusiastic when my hon. friend from Assiniboia spoke, call him to order.


George Taylor: He did not discuss the merits of the Bill.


Alfred Henry Clarke: When he was talking about the high salaries being paid, or about the paid-up capital stock, had that nothing to do with the Bill? There was no objection whatever at that time, and I am a little surprised that my hon. friend should be so partial to my hon. friend from Assiniboia that he will not listen to me with as much grace as he listened to him. I will not trouble the House very long. I think it is well, however, that we should have a thorough understanding of this Bill, because the opinion which has been expressed by a great many people is something so foreign to my understanding of the Bill that I cannot understand the opposition which is being offered to it. In 1847 this company was incorporated by a deed of settlement. In that deed of settlement there was a provision with respect to profits. It provided that for the first two years no profits should be paid to the policy-holders, but thereafter the directors were empowered-they were not compelled but empowered-to declare profits from the participating business only and the profits were to be declared in the proportion of 75 per cent to policyholders and 25 per cent to the shareholders. In 1849 the first Act was passed. The company came to this parliament and got an Act of incorporation. When you speak about vested rights, if there has ever been any case of interference with vested rights in connection with this company, it was in 1849, because, prior to that time upon a

division of profits, the policy-holders were entitled to 75 per cent, but by the Act of 1849, that limitation was removed and the directors were empowered to allot such a proportion of profits as, in their judgment, they saw best.


Haughton Lennox: The hon gentleman has surely disclosed quite clearly the line that he is pursuing. If anything can be manifest it is that he is discussing the merits of the Bill on the motion that this matter be referred back to the Banking and Commerce Committee. This motion does not in any sense involve the question of the merits of the Bill pro or con. I submit that the hon. gentleman cannot delay the passage of the Bill or the adoption of the motion in this way. It is simply a matter of obstruction. Although I do not want to interfere unduly with the hon. gentleman I think he should be called to order. I ask for the Tuling of the Chair.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The question before us is very plain. It is a motion to refer the Bill to the Banking and Commerce Committee. I am not the judge of the reasons that any hon. gentleman may give for or against this measure being adopted, but if the hon. gentleman proposes to discuss the details of the Bill upon this motion it is certainly out of order. The main motion is that the House go into committee on a number of Bills this one included.


Mr. BRODEUR.: Do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that if there is a motion for the House to go into committee on a Bill you may discuss the merits of the Bill, and if some body else moves in amendment that the Bill should be referred to some committee it would not preclude the discussion of the general principle of the Bill.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The difficulty is that the main motion asks me to leave the Chair so that the House may go into committee on a number of Bills not only upon this one. Of course, if the contention of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is correct, all the other Bills could be discussed in the same way. The main motion is merely pro forma, because, under the new rules, it is generally adopted without discussion so that the House may immediately go into committee on these Bills. I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. H. Clarke) had better limit himself to the motion before the Chair.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Of course, I cannot make my argument complete unless I go into the merits of the Bill, because I want to lay the foundation for the argument I intend to close up with ; that is that so great a delay would be most dangerous to the interest of the policy-holders. I cannot do that properly unless I give the House my views on the merits of the Billl
generally. Now, I was pointing out


Alfred Henry Clarke: 


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Certainly.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the hon. member for Essex be good enough to tell the House in what way the opposing of this measure or allowing it to stand over would injure the policy-holders?


Alfred Henry Clarke: I am coming to that just as soon as I can and in logical order. I was saying, in giving a history of the legislation in regard to this company, that in the Act of 1849 there was no limitation whatever of the proportion of profits to be divided amongst the policy-holders and shareholders. The parliamentarians of that day did not think they were interfering very seriously with vested rights because prior to that Act the policy-holders were absolutely entitled to 75 per cent of the profits, which right was entirely taken away by the Act of 1849. After the Act of 1849 they could be allotted one per cent, or two per cent, or no per cent at all, if the company were so advised. So that we have the strongest precedent for the measure which is being brought in dealing with a distribution of profits between them. Notwithstanding the Act of 1849 the practice of the insurance company was to divide the profits in the proportion of 75 per cent to 25 per cent. This was continued down to 1879 when the Bill which is causing the present difficulty was brought before the House. What was the reason for bringing that Bill before the House? This is not a matter only between the company and the policy-holders. There is also a matter between the shareholders and the directors. Up to that time the directors had been


Haughton Lennox: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to a point of order. I am going to endeavour to see if we are to have any rules of procedure at all. The hon. gentleman, for ten minutes more, has gone on with the history of the legislation of this company. This has no reference whatever to the motion before the Chair. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule, and to insist upon your ruling being observed.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I can only repeat what I have said that the discussion of the Bill is at the present time, out of order. The question before the Chair is simply whether this Bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce. The main motion asks the House to go into committee on a number of Bills on the Order Paper.


Mr. MACDONALD.: I would like to suggest that the House ought to be in possession of the facts that would enable hon. members to arrive at a conclusion whether or not we should go into committee on the Bill. The negative of the motion of the

hon. member for Simcoe is quite as pertinent as the positive side of that motion. Those of us who want to know what are the facts in connection with this matter ought, on this motion, or on the motion of which my hon. friend has moved in amendment, to have ample opportunity to know what the merits of this Bill are and which motion should be adopted. It is perhaps germane to this question of order to point out that my hon. friend who quoted from a minute of the Attorney General of Ontario as to the interest of the policyholders might perhaps consider the question as to the right of policy-holders who are members of this House to vote upon or discuss perhaps a measure in which they are personally interested.


Haughton Lennox: The matter is simply this: It has been brought to the attention of the House that certain advertisements were issued, and if these advertisements are to be effective the matter should be referred now to the Banking and Commerce Committee to reconsider the question of whether this Bill should be passed or not ot whether we should hear the parties who may come before the committee so that they can report the matter back to the House. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I submit that any discussion as to the history of the legislation, the history of the company, the merits of the Bill, is utterly irrelevant. The only question is should the Bill go back to the Banking and Commerce Committe or should it not/


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Bourinot says:
It has been frequently decided in the English House that on a motion for the Speaker to leave the chair a member is at liberty to discuss the main provisions but not to proceed in detail through the clauses in order to discuss amendments to the same, until the Bill is regularly in committee.
That is what I have held.


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is precisely what I understood and what I was intending to do. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) does not seem to like to hear me, but I have listened to a great many speeches from him to-day and I think he might return me the compliment for this one speech. In 1879 an Act was passed which the present Bill is intended to rectify.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Chair.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. member (Mr. Clarke) is an old member of the House; he understands what the ruling is and I am quite sure he will abide by it.


Alfred Henry Clarke: The whole difficulty has been caused by the anxiety of the framers of the Bill of 1879 to include the profits of non-participating policies as well
as of participating policies, and they use the words which, according to the opinion of Sir Robert Findlay, go beyond the intention and practice of every other insurance company doing business in Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What words do you refer to?


Alfred Henry Clarke: 'All the profits.' Up to 1879 the directors were not authorized directly by the statute then in force to divide among policy-holders the profits arising from anything but participating policies. That is to say, profits arising from annuities or from the non-participating branch. The directors were not authorized by the Act of 1849 to distribute amongst the participating policy-holders. That being so it was competent for any stockholder to find fault with the action of the directors for exceeding their authority. if the stockholders were not unanimous any one of them would have the right to say to the directors: You have no right to distribute these profits on nonparticipating policies amongst the participating policy-holders, but they should be paid in dividends to the stockholders. One of the objects of the Act of 1879 was to give authority to the directors ito do what they had in practice been doing, although they were not expressly authorized to do it. In the preamble they use the words which are the vital point in this discussion. That preamble says:
Whereas, the Canada Life Assurance Company have by their petition represented that in carrying on their business heretofore the directors have allotted and divided among all persons assured upon the participation scale 75 per cent of all the profits.
That is the important part of it.
Realized from the entire business of the company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It says 'all the profits from the enitire business.' That means from every source.


Alfred Henry Clarke: The recital says they have been doing that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is an allegation of fact, and upon that allegation policies were taken ,out.


Alfred Henry Clarke: The allegation is thaJt they have been dividing heretofore all the profits of the insurance business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From the .entire business; not from the insurance business That includes the capital as well as the iD surance.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I will read it again:
All the profits realized from the entire business of the company.

_ The statement of fact in that Act of 1879 is that theretofore they had been dividing all the .profits from the entire business of the company. If up to that time they had been dividing the profits derived from the investment of the capital stock then they would have no right to come here and say there is any mistake. But what they say is that that was not intended to mean what it is now said to mean, namely, that the interest on the capital stock should be treated as part of the profits of the business. The evidence is abundant and cannot be controverted, because every person who knows anything about it says that such was not the practice before 1879. Mr. Ramsay, who was president of the company at the time and who was president almost all his life; the actuaries who looked into it; Mr. Bruce who was the solicitor for many years


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Were these gentlemen called before the Banking and Commerce Committee to .give their evidence?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Mr. Bruce was there.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did he make a statement before the committee?


Alfred Henry Clarke: I am not a member of the committee and do not know, but I have the certificate of Mr. Ramsay which was distributed to the policy-holders.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That is not a statutory declaration.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Well, you can accept Mr. Ramsay's word just as well as you could a statutory declaration. Very well then, you have the statement of all these people that never in the whole history of this company have they distributed amongst the policy-holders any part of the interest on the capital stock, so that, if in the recital of the Act of 1879 you construe the words ' all the profits ' as meaning the interest on the capital stock, then certainly the allegation is a mistake, because they never have been doing that at all. I find fault with the statement of the case which was submitted by Mr. Laidlaw, of Toronto, who has been very active in opposition to this Bill, to Sir Robert Findlay. Mr. Laid-law says:
It is, therefore, not necessary for the purposes pf the opinion to refer to any payment of dividends or allotment of profits before the passing of the Act of 1879. The company is bound by the recital in the preamble to the Act of 1879, and clause one of the Act, inclusive, of the said proviso.
That is the kernel of the whole matter.
I would judge that in submitting to counsel a statement of facts it was of the utmost importance to have pointed out to Sir Robert Findlay that up to 1879, what the Act of Mr. A. H. CLARKE.
1879 calls ' all the profits ' did not include the profits arising from the investment of the capital stock.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Whatever may have been the practice before the Act of 1879, when this Act was passed with that preamble in it, would not the parties who took out policies after that date be correct in understanding that the division of the profits was to be on the entire business, and that that entire business included the earnings on capital as well as the earnings on policies?


Alfred Henry Clarke: If he did not know what the practice of the company was, I think it might be open to that construction.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Alfred Henry Clarke: My hon. friends say ' hear, hear,' but if it were not for that fact we would not be here to-night. If it were not for the opinion given by Sir Robert Findlay we would not be here with this Bill; it was because of that opinion the doubt was raised. He has said, upon the statement Tendered to him, that the meaning of the Act is not what every one intended it should mean, and so the company has come here to make the meaning plain.


Haughton Lennox: Did my hon. friend hear the member for Hamilton state in committee that there was no doubt at all but that in a court of justice the opinion of Sir Robert Findlay would be sustained?


Alfred Henry Clarke: If the opinion ol Sir Robert Findlay is. sustained, that is the best answer I can give for coming here before the high court of parliament. Hon gentlemen shake their heads, but I can refer to much higher legal authority than I am. If they look at the case of Richards vs. McBride, in England, they will find it decided that if the draftsman has made a mistake, it is for the legislature to rectify it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That mistake would have to be mutual; that is to say it must not deceive the policy-holders. Vou must not say that because you have made .a mistake, the policy-holders must suffer for it.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I will come to that. The question I am discussing is, is this the proper tribunal to rectify a mistake? The difficulty here is that the courts have such a high opinion of parliament that they treat it as not making any mistakes. It is pointed out in one case that the legislators are ideal persons who never make a mistake, and we do not want to undeceive them on that point.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Would not we make u mistake if we took away the rights of the policy-holders on the representations of other people?


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is a question of opinion which each member of the House must decide for himself. Unless I have heard more than I have heard yet, I am of opinion that we would be doing a decided injury to the policy-holders if we did not pass this Bill. I have pointed out that the Act of 1879 has been asked for by the company. If there was anything in the history of that Act to show that the capital stock was to be invested for the benefit of the policy-holders, it was never suggested in the House. The Bill was introduced by Mr. Robertson, of Hamilton, in a very simple statement, which you will find in 'Hansard' of 1879:
Mr. ROBERTSON (Hamilton) explained that, according to the original Act of incorporation, the company had power to divide its profits between the participating policyholders and the shareholders in the proportion of three-fourths to the policy-holders and one-fourth to the shareholders. This Bill proposed to extend this proportion to not less than ninety per cent to the participating policy-holders, and not to exceed ten per cent to shareholders. The only persons who could possibly object to this would be the stockholders, and they, at a general meeting called for the purpose, resolved to carry out the suggestion of the directors.
He did not suggest for a moment that the character of the profits that had been divided theretofore was to be altered, but simply that the proportion of the profits were to be altered. I have pointed out that those profits did not include the investments in the capital stock, and I have not heard in all the discussion on this Bill any person say that it would be just to the Canada Life Company to impose upon it the interpretation which it is said the Act of 1879 ought to bear.


Haughton Lennox: We have not come to that yet.	.


Alfred Henry Clarke: We have come to it in other Bills in this very session, which required the companies to do only what the Canada Life has done. The legislation put through this session requires the companies to divide amongst the participating policy-holders only the profits arising from the participating branch.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They have not made any contract to the contrary.


Alfred Henry Clarke: That has nothing to do with it. I venture to say that there is no company in Canada and no British company doing business in Canada that does what the Canada life has been doing during the last thirty years with respect to its profits. You will look through the Acts of incorporation of the different companies in vain to find one which provides that the company shall divide amongst the policyholders both the participating and the nonparticipating profits. If you look over the report of the Royal Commission on Insurance, you will find that in every instance the companies have done precisely what the Canada Life has done, that is: First divide the interest on the capital stock among the shareholders before they make the division among the policy-holders. The Canada Life has gone further than other companies in this respect. Let us look at the Sun Life and see what it has done.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Does not the hon. member think this discussion would be better, in committee? The question before the House is whether this Bill shall be referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee, and on that motion the authorities say that a general allusion may be made to the measure, but the details cannot be discussed. All that the hon. gentleman has said could be said in committee.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I listened attentively to the authorities cited, and I understood the details there referred to the sections of a Bill and not to the argument.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The original motion is that the House go into committee on several Bills. This amendment refers to another Bill.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As I understand the situation, the orders of the day are read, and the motion is made that these Bills be referred to the Committee on the whole. On this motion a general discussion might take place as to their general provisions, as stated by Bourinot and May. Then when an amendment is made that one of these Bills should be referred to the Committee of the Whole it will not preclude discussion on the general provisions of the Bill. That is what the hon. gentleman is doing now and Bourinot states further that the details of the Bill should not then be discussed. I interpret this provision of Bourinot to mean that it is not in order to discuss the special clauses of each Bill but that the general provisions can be discussed. The House has been discussing the merits of the Bill and the hon. member for Essex is now discussing its general provisions, without going into the details, the meaning of the special clauses or the drafting or special words included in each clause.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that be held to be correct, there will be three or four Bills before the House at the same time and it will be equally the right of the House to go into the provisions of .every one.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be an utter absurdity. Therefore I do not think that is the intention in framing the rule.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is the way the rule is drafted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As I understand the authority which has just been read it refers to what can be spoken to on a motion to go into committee on the Bill. We have got past that motion, we have an amendment before the Chair that a certain Bill, embraced in the general motion, should go to a certain place for discussion, and I submit that the discussion must be limited to the amendment. Gentlemen on this side who have spoken, gave in very short language reasons why the Bill should go to committee.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. There is only one case where discussion is limited to the amendment, that is on the motion to go into Supply to which there is an amendment to discuss a snecial question. The authorities lay down the rule that we must then discuss only the subject of the amendment. In all other motions which come before the House, if an amendment is made, we have the right to discuss not only the amendment but also the main motion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Before the amendment is negatived?
Mr. BRODFT'^ Certainly.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to ,see the authority.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is clear that in the case of any other motion to which an amenndment is moved, we have the right ito discuss not only the amendment, but also the main motion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not dispute you have a right to discuss both while the Speaker is in the chair, but you have not the right to discuss them together. The amendment is put and after it is negatived the main motion is discussed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is mistaken. He will see the rule is well laid down that when there is a main motion and an amendment we have a right to discuss both the main motion and the amendment. What have we in this case? We have a motion to go into committee on a certain _ Bill and an amendment is made that this Bill should be referred to.a committee. On this motion and the amendment we have the right to discuss not only the amendment but also the main motion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Which includes the Hudson Bay Railway, the Algoma Central Railway and the Canada Central Bill. Does not the hon. gentleman see the absurdity of this?


Haughton Lennox: This has ceased to be a question of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: My ruling is plain. The main motion is that I should leave the Mr. SPROULE.
Chair for the House to go into committee on eight Bills which are on the Order Paper. The amendment is that one Bill be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. We are not discussing the merits of that one Bill. I decide that on that question the hon. gentleman was put of order in discussing the details of the Bill. The hon. member sees clearly the position. It is whether the Bill should be referred to the Committee on Banking and Commerce. The hon. gentleman is not to discuss the merits of the Bill on this motion.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: How about the 'main motion?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The main motion is put.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, the amendment is now before the House.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Certainly.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have decided that way.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Might I


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The ruling cannot be discussed.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I merely wish to ascertain just what His Honour, Mr. Speaker, has Tuled. Do I understand, Sir, that you have ruled that on a motion to send this Bill to a committee it is impossible to discuss the alternative of the propositipn, namely, that this Bill should go to the Committee of the Whole House?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have decided that the hon. gentleman is not at liberty to discuss the details of this measure on this amendment.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He may discuss the main provisions of the Bill.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That is what he has been doing for some time.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose he may discuss the main provisions of the Bill.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have decided that the hon. gentleman may not discuss the details. That is what he has been doing. He can give reasons why the Bill should or should not be referred to the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce.


Alfred Henry Clarke: The reason I was going into the matter at considerable length was that my fellow members who had not studied the Bill carefully were anxious before voting on this motion to have a thorough understanding of the case. If I am precluded from explaining, of course, they will not have the benefit of the light I hope to shed around them and will have to vote without it. I will have to abandon a good deal of what I wish to say. My reason for opposing its being sent to the Banking and

Commerce Committee is the urgency of having it passed this session. This is the year when the profits will have to be apportioned to the policy-holders if there are to be any profits this year. The custom of the company has been to divide these profits every five years. In 1904 the profits which had been earned in the five preceding years were divided amongst the policy-holders, some having them added to their policy, some having them go in the reduction of the premium and some receiving the benefit in cash. The time for another division comes this year. As a policy-holder, T have a verv strong objection to putting this company in such a position that the profits on my policies will be cut off. The company has now got to a position when the profits ought to be very materially increased. Ten years ago they were very considerably decreased, because at that time they had to put up the main part of the reserve which was required by the government. Five years after that the profits were considerably increased, that is at the last quinquennial division. That reserve having been put up, it is reasonable to expect that this year there will be a considerable further increase in the profits. If we are to prevent the company from getting this legislation and they are left in a position of uncertainty, with the prospect of lawsuits. I think any sane directors will say: We will not declare any profits until we know what our position is. They are not bound to declare any profits, to be divided amongst policy-holders, they need not declare them from now until kingdom come. Many members have an entire misapprehension of what these profits mean. There is no law, by contract or statute, which requires the directors to give any profits to policy-holders.


John Gillanders Turriff: What would the company under these circumstances do with the profits?


Alfred Henry Clarke: The company under these circumstances would accumulate the profits. The effect of this would I think be to ruin the company. If you are going to reduce the dividends from 8 per cent to less than 4 per cent, you will not find any directors enthusiastic about making the business profitable for the benefit of the policy-holders who put them in that position. It will be easy for them to say: we will quit business, let your policies expire, and settle with the policy-holders as their policies mature from time to time. This year, in the natural order- of things, they would divide profits, but as business men, they are certainly not going to take the risk of dividing profits with this claim hanging over their heads. The result, therefore, would be that every policy-holder would be up in arms because he was not getting any profits at all. Those who are now getting $10 on small policies would get nothing;
and those with large policies would suffer more still. You would then find that instead of the Canada Life asking for this Bill, the policy-holders would be swarming around us insisting that it should be passed. The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr Turriff) talked of meeting these angry men. Well, I have met them-as good business men as you will find anywhere-in my own riding. They were not satisfied with everything. They thought that the directors paid up that reserve sooner than they needed, and that the salaries in some cases were too high, but that has nothing to do with the Bill. They realized that if the company were going to pay any profits, it must do a profitable business. But if you are going to cut the company down, so that it cannot do a profitable business, that may be a temporary inconvenience to the shareholders but the ultimate loss will come from the pockets of the policy-holders. Every argument that has been raised to-night, every argument that can be raised, was raised before the Banking and Commerce Committee, and it would not be complimentary to the policy-holders who were then heard, to say that others can present better arguments than they have been able to do.


Mr SPROULE.: With reeard to the power of the company, to withhold a division of the profits is it not a portion of their contract and included in each policy that the company will divide the profits periodically?


Alfred Henry Clarke: No, not a word of it, the company did not agree to anything of the sort. Let the hon. gentleman read his policy.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no policy in the company.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I have.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that is not the case, is it not a fact that their agents represent to the people they try to induce to go into the company, that this was the invariable rule and would be done?


Alfred Henry Clarke: No. I have been canvassed ' by as many agents as most people, and I know the contrary. The statute does not bind the company nor does the policy. The policy-holders will accept such profits as are allotted to them. There is nothing that compels the company to allot profits to the extent of one cent. If they do allot profits, the proportions are fixed but they are not bound to.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the interpretation of the word ' may ?'


Alfred Henry Clarke: The directors are authorized by the shareholders. The stat-

ute says that the directors have the power to allot profits. Before 1879 they did not have that authority. This statute says: They may, and that shows the importance of proceeding at once. Surely everything that can be urged, has been urged, and it seems to me that the course we are asked to take would be absolutely the undoing of the policy-holders; and as a policy-holder myself I protest against people who claim to be our friends taking a course which is going to work mischief to our detriment. I submit that the Bill should not go back to the committee. It has been fully discussed and the Committee of the Whole is fully competent to deal with it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have a letter here from a policy-holder who has written me several times and who tells me he has entered suit to recover his rights under his contract.


Alfred Henry Clarke: What is his name?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: His name is Chadwick and he is from Toronto. His letter is dated the 27th of March, and in it he says that the writ was issued a few days ago and was served on the company yesterday. He says further that other writs are to follow and he intends to prosecute his suit until it reaches the highest court in the Dominion. Surely, he says, the government are not going to confiscate what belongs to me under the contract.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I have the writ before me. It is against the Canada Life Assurance Company and asks the company to pay back all those dividends which have been paid the shareholders. How do you expect the company to be able to pay any profit to anybody if they have to pay the back dividends?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question is whether we should interfere with the civil right of any one to prosecute a suit for the purpose of compelling a delinquent to carry out his contract. That is where the provincial government comes in. This is part of the civil rights of the people. The province is charged with the responsibility of looking after the rights of infants and orphans not able to look after their own. This is part of the civil rights, and my correspondent says: Am I to be denied the right of going	before the Banking and
Commerce	Committee and submitting
my case? I replied that the only way was for him either to appear before the bar of the House or before a committee of the House, which method parliament has devised as the most convenient. I replied further that I believed this Bill would be sent back to the Banking and Commerce Committee, after it was considered by the Standing Orders Committee, that is, if it should be taken up again this session, and that then every policy-holder Mr. A. H. CLARKE.
would have the opportunity of going before that committee and convincing parliament through it that his rights in that contract should not be taken away. But that now is denied, and the farce is to be perpetrated of having a notice published in the ' Gazette ' and then not allowing the interested parties to whom that notice was given to appear before the committee and vindicate their grievances.


Mr. GOODEVE.: The right hon. the Prime Minister in giving his reason for not allowing this Bill to go before the Banking and Commerce Committee, said that it had already gone before the Standing Orders Committee and that committee had said that the necessary advertising had been done. As a member of that committee,- I wish to say that the ground there taken was that the committee was not authorized to adjudicate whether sufficient notice had been given, but only to report w'hat notice had been published. One of the members of that committee cited cases to prove that the notices given were not sufficient, but the objection was taken and that objection prevailed that the committee was not empowered to consider that matter but only to report what notices had been given. I personally asked that a rider should be added to the report of the committee asking that the Bill be sent back Co the Banking and Commerce Committee in order that the policy-holders might be heard. There is no necessity for me to reiterate the argu-meftts which have been made to-night. There can be no doubt to my mind that it would be an absolute farce for this House as a Committee of the Whole to dispose of this Bill. The Bill was sent, as I have said, to the Standing Orders Committee. They reported the Bill back, not saying that the notice was sufficient, but merely saying what the notice was. The hkm. member for South Essex (Mr. Clarke) said that the company had readvertised the Bill. Then I ask what was the object of readvertising that Bill if it were not that the policyholders might be heard in regard to it. All we are asking here is that they may have the privilege and advantage of that readvertising, that all the parties may be heard. The hon. member for South Essex says that no argument has been advanced from this side of the House or by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) why this Bill should not be gone on with. Well, if they have not advanced any such argument, then I say it is impossible to understand any force in reason and logic. There Was one particular point raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia which I think is of vital importance. He intimated that there is a general feeling abroad that when the interest of the people comes into conflict with the interest of corporations, it

is the interest of the people that goes to the wall. If that is so, then I say that no more important question has been raised in this House since the session commenced. It is vitally important that the country at large should be satisfied that we are here as defenders of the public interest, and not of the interest of any corporation or individuals. I am not going to undertake to answer the arguments of the hon. member for South Essex, though I think they could be easily answered, but I want to keep within the ruling of the Speaker. I am now simply speaking to the question whether the amendment before the House should be adopted, or whether this Bill should be referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee in order that the people may be heard. As a member of that standing committee I may say that they took the view they were not there to adjudicate on the merits of the Bill, but simply whether it should be referred to the Banking and Commerce Committee, and on that ground we reported it. I would ask that every member in this House, realizing the claims of the great public, should give them another chance to be heard. There is no doubt a feeling of unrest throughout 'the country, which is shown by the rise of 'socialism and other fads based on the contention that justice is not being done to [DOT]the people in dealing with matters such as this. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we should give every opportunity to all the interests to be heard on this question, and on that ground I ask that this Bill be referred to the Committee on Banking and .Commerce in order that every man and woman interested in it may feel that parliament is looking after their [DOT]rights.


Mr. GUTHBIE.: I would like to say a word in regard to the amendment that this Bill should be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce. I am opposed to that course, and for reasons which I believe are impartial. I have no interest in the matter, except that of a holder of a participating policy in the Canada Life Assurance Company. I was present during the discussion in the Banking and Commerce Committee, and I may say I think we had a very full and free discussion on the Bill without discussing whether it had been advertised as fully as it should have been or not. It was very fully and ably discussed by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), and to some extent by my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), and ably discussed by the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and others. The" company had its representatives there. Most of those who took part in the discussion were policy-holders and interested parties, and I think I am within the mark when I say that every man who saw fit to attend the sittings of that committee when this Bill was under discussion had every opportunity to come to a conclusion. After an unprejudiced and impartial discussion, without any partisanship, without any political feeling, the hon. member for Halton, who undertook the chief part of the discussion, did not see fit to divide the committee upon the question. Then it came back to the House. On the 22nd of March it was fairly well discussed in this House, until somebody took the point that insufficient notice had been given, or that the notice given was not sufficiently explicit. Then the Bill went back to the Standing Orders. We know what the Standing Orders Committee reported, and what they were authorized to report. What I fear now is that if this amendment carries this Bill will not he advanced this session. I do not doubt the bona fides of the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) in his amendment, and certainly my hon. friend from Assiniboia has made it quite plain what his object is. He does not want the Bill advanced during the present session, but postponed until next fall. I take the ground as a policy-holder on the participating plan that that course will injure the policy-holders and injure the company, and that anything which is an injury to the company will be an injury to the policy-holders. It is idle to say that' the policy-holders as interested parties cannot be heard in response to the notice which has recent]v been .given. It is open to the policy-holders to be fully heard before the bar of this House, either in person or by counsel. All their grievances can be heard. It is open to them to be heard bv petition, and they can be heard through their representatives.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not in the usual way before the ordinary committee?


Hugh Guthrie: My only objection to that course is that a reference again to the Banking and Commerce Committee will involve delay and the defeat of this Bill for the present session. I am aware of the technicalities which are sometimes employed to delay a Bill. I do not, as I say, doubt the good faith of the hon. member who has moved this amendment, and the hon. member for Assiniboia has made his view quite plain. He says he and his friends want it put off until next fall. I think it would he disastrous to put it off. If the Bill goes to the Banking and Commerce Committee the discussion there may he interminable, and the Bill will not be advanced during the present session, if the present session is going to come to an end wdthin a reasonable time.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Who would suffer?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that probably chaos would follow. Actions would be brought against this company by the policy-holders, or by the company against the directors, and this would involve the credit of the company and would materially affect the profits. The policy-holders would suffer as a result of postponement. I believe it is in the interest of all parties that this Bill should be considered and considered now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman think it is the right and the duty of parliament to legislate men out of court?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not as a general rule think they should be legislated out of court, but I think it is the duty of this parliament, if a wrong has been done in the past by legislation, to put that wrong right at the earliest possible moment. I do not desire to discuss the merits of the Bill. I have examined it, I have considered it, and I have come to my own conclusion upon it. When the Bill comes up for discussion in the House I certainly intend to exercise my judgment in regard to it without expressing what that judgment shall be at the present time. But I think it is the duty of hon. members in the interest of the policy-holders and of the company to advance this measure and not retard it as they would by the adoption of the motion of the hon. member for South Simcoe.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman realize that the course he advocates will prevent an investigation as to whether there is a wrong being done by this Bill or not?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I do not take that view of it. I think hon. members are quite capable of investigating that matter in this House. I think that forty or fifty per cent are policy-holders and interested parties and that they will take care of the interests of the policy-holders at large.


Arthur Meighen: Following on the question asked the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), if the hon. gentleman believes as he does that it is not in the interest of the policy-holders to so embarrass the company by suits, does he think it is any part of the duty of this parliament to say to the policy-holders that it is not in their interest to sue the company or are not the policy-holders the best judges of that?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the House will be able to judge of that when the Bill is discussed.


David Henderson: I assume that the House is anxious to divide upon this question and I shall only say a few words. I have not heard one substantial argument for refusing the motion which is before the House now. It is claimed by the promo-Mr. LANCASTER.
ter of the Bill (Mr. A. H. Clarke) that a mistake was made in 1879. It was claimed by the hon. gentleman who spoke last that a wrong had been done. I want to draw the attention of the House to these statements. These matters came before the committee and I want to explain why I think it is a proper thing that the Bill should go 'back to the committee again. It is on account of the very discussion that we had in the Banking and Commerce Committee before. It was alleged in the Banking and Commerce Committee that a mistake had been made. So strong was the assurance that many of us in the committee really thought that some mistake had been made. A letter was even produced from Mr. A. G. Ramsay, who had been manager of the company for a long time, and who had been a director on the board. That letter was read hurriedly and then stowed away in the valise of the solicitor and the committee were not able to see it again. When I inquired for it of the clerk of the committee on the following day I found that it had never been handed in. I was under the impression that Mr. Ramsay was responsible in some way for the statement that an error had been made. I am surprised now to find, since I have received a copy of that letter and have had an opportunity of reading if carefully, that Mr. Ramsay makes no such statement. There is no evidence whether such a mistake was made in 1879. I am satisfied that no person could contend that. The solicitor of the company present at the Banking and Commerce Committee meeting, to the best of my recollection and I think I am right; and there are many hon. members who were present, could not get up and say that there was a mistake made. I have never found that any .such mistake was made in the legislation of 1879. I believe that Mr. Ramsay is the only living director at the present time, and I am surprised that this matter should have remained quiet so long until the men who knew all about it should have passed off the scene of action. I say advisedly that the committee was practically misled by the solicitor when he made the allegation that an error had occurred in the legislation of 1879 and that we were called upon to rectify that error. That was strongly impressed upon the committee and it very materially influenced the committee. A strong impression was made upon the committee that a mistake had been made in the legislation and that that mistake ought to be rectified. I am satisfied now, after having studied the whole question, that no mistake was made in tbe legislation of 1879, or yet in the preparation of the petition asking for that legislation. The matter having been pressed so strongly on the committee practically without evidence, but just on the statement of

the solicitor, I say that and that alone is a strong reason why the Bill should go back to the Committee on Banking and Commerce in order that they may deal with it more intelligently, knowing the facts now which they did not know before. I am strongly in favour of sending it back, however, that any interested party, be he policy-holder or whatever he may be, if he has an interest in this legislation, may be given an opportunity of stating his case. I could not conscientiously refuse any man that right. I can hardly believe that this House is going to refuse any policy-holder that right. The argument advanced by the hon: member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) that if it goes back to the Banking and Commerce Committee it will defeat the Bill for this session is not justified. Why should it be so? I think there is perhaps power enough behind the Throne to put this Bill through even if it does not go through to-night. I am not afraid but that there will be a way found of putting this Bill through after a week's or a few day's delay. Therefore, I do not think that the argument will have any force or weight with any hon. member. I know it will have no force or weight with me. I am going to do justice to the policyholders, although we have to delay the passing of the Bill for a whole week. I have many policy-holders in my own constituency. I am bound to protect their interests, and that practically is all the interest I have in it, because I am only a policyholder in the company for a very small sum. It is my duty as well to protect the policy-holders all over the country wherever they are. I propose to remain here for the purpose of doing that, and I hope and trust the House will see the propriety of adopting the motion proposed by my hon. friend from South Simeoe and of giving the people who are entitled to it the right to say whether they have a grievance or not before we undertake to deal finally with this Bill.


Mr. NESBITT.: As a member of the Banking and Commerce Committee I desire to say that this Bill was discussed when it was before the committee and we considered that the notice had been properly given. I consider now that the notice, as printed in the Votes and Proceedings, was properly given in the first instance. If we sent the Bill back to the Banking and Commerce Committee, we would only quarrel over it for two or three days more and we would only arrive at the same conclusion that we arrived at the other day. I would not like the members of the House to be carried away by sensational statements about high salaries and the rights of policyholders. I represent a section of the country where, in proportion to its population there live as many policy-holders of the Canada Life as in any other section of Canada. The company has been well represented there for a great number of years and there are a great many policy-holders in the district. This agitation has been going on now for three months; it has been published in the papers, and the gentleman from Toronto who is at the back of it has been active. There was no discussion by the policy-holders before the Banking and Commerce Committee and the probability is that unless you go out and seek for it there will be no discussion there if the Bill is referred back. I was home for seven or eight days during the Easter recess and recently from Saturday morning until Sunday morning, and although the papers were full of this thing there was only one man among all the policy-holders in my section of the country who asked me anything about the Bill. He telphoned and asked me what it meant and I told him and he was perfectly satisfied. I am sorry to have to say it, but it is true, that many of the statements that have been made here tonight are pure sensationalism. There must be some reason for the opposition that does not appear on the surface because what the Canada Life asks in this Bill is to do what every insurance company doing business on the stock principle in Canada is doing to-day. I state here that the Canada Life Company has paid as good profits ever since its inception as any company doing business in Canada. That is a broad statement but I challenge any man to get up on the floor of this House and deny it, and if he does I can prove the truth of my statement. I think it would be ridiculous to send this Bill back to the Banking and Commerce Committee to have a reiteration of the same discussion that was carried on for two days already in that committee.
House divided on the amendment. (Mr. Lennox).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Ames,
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barr,
Blain,
Bradbury,
Bristol,
Broder,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Crocket,
Daniel,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Eraser,
Goodeve,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
Lake,
Lancaster,
Magrath,
Marshall,
Meighen,
Middlebro,
Owen,
Paquet,
Porter,
Price,
Rhodes,
Schaffner,
Sexsmith.
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn,
Thornton,
Turriff,
White (Renfrew),

Lennox,
Lortie,
Maddin,
Wilson (Lennox and Addington), Wright.-52.


Mr. WALLACE.: I am paired with the hon. member for North Wellington. If I had not been, I would have voted for the
NAYS:
Messieurs
amendment.
Amendment negatived, motion agreed to and House went into committee.
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Borden (Sir Fred.), Boyer,
Brodeur,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chisholm
(Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Beer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conrnee,
Currie
(Prince Edward), Delisle,
Demers,
Dubeau,
Dugas,
Ecrement,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gladu,
Graham,
Guthrie,
Harris,
Hunt,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lanctot. (Laprairie-
Napierville), _ Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McAlister,
McCoig,
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre
(Strathcona),
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal,
St. Mary's), Mayrand,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Nesbitt,
Neeley,
P'apineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross,
Savoie,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Stratton,
Sutherland,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebec
County),
Turgeon,
Warburton,
White
(Victoria, Alta), Wilson (Laval.-103.
PAIRS:
Messieurs
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Gordon (Kent),	Russell,
Meigs,	Roche,
Martin (Wellington), Wallace,
Martin (Regina).	Gordon	(Nipissing).(Pairs on this	division not a	party	vote.)


George Taylor: The hon. member for Centre York has not voted.



CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for the consideration of Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Haughton Lennox: I submit that we ought not to go on with this Bill at this hour of the night. It is a very important Bill, the merits of which have not been discussed at all on this side of the House. It is a Bill that is vital to the interest of 40,000 policy-holders-, representing about 200,000 people. We have been sitting here almost continuously since eleven o'clock this morning, it is now past twelve o clock, we must meet again at eleven, some of us have work at ten, and it is not fair to ask us to take up this Bill at this hour of the night. If the government insists on going on, we will have to discuss it as well as we can. It will take some time. I submit to the First Minister that although we could probably clear the Order Paper of most of the other private Bills, we ought not to be asked to take up this Bill now.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the sense of the House is certainly in favour of this Bill. I think my hon. friend will admit that. We do not want to press the matter unduly. My hon. friend says that he wants to have discussion of the Bill. If the Bill is not unfairly dealt with, we certainly will endeavour to meet his wishes; but if we want to have prorogation soon, the business of the House must be proceeded with, and as the House has decided in favour of this Bill, I think it ought to go on.


Haughton Lennox: The probability is that the First Minister is right in saying that the sense of the House is in favour of the Bill, in the sense that the majority are inclined at present to put it through. It may be that our discussion of the matter will be ineffective; but we will not assume that for the present. There are a number of gentleman on this side of the House who feel that it will be their duty to discuss this matter somewhat fully. I do not think there is any desire to prolong the discussion beyond what is necessary. Speaking for myself, I will only say what I believe to be in the interests of the public; but the Prime Minister must recognize that although the majority may be in favour of the Bill, yet the minority have a right to have a reasonable opportunity of expressing their views as forcibly as they possibly can.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: 


George Taylor: Might I suggest to the Prime Minister that there are a great many Private Bills on the Order Paper that ought to be put through, and these could be run through in a very few moments. There will be an hour for private Bills to-morrow evening, when Mr. Conmee's Bill and this Bill could be dealt with, and we can clear the Order Paper with the exception of these two Bills.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I do not care to give way to other Bills. There is no reason why a Bill that has been discussed as much as this has been should stand over.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think better progress will be made with the Bill if it is allowed to stand over.


George Taylor: We on this side of the House want to do everything we can to bring the session to a close at the time stated; but my right hon. friend knows that if we get up a little fight, it might last all night, and we would make no progress.
I suggest to him to accept the suggestion on this side of the House to clear the Order Paper of the other Bills, and let the two Bills referred to stand over.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The very negativing of the motion just voted on has forced upon us on this side of the House the necessity of taking a great deal more care before we let this Bill pass. We have prevented the public at large from coming before the ordinary committee of the House to present their views, and therefore it devolves upon us to be all the more careful to say everything they could possibly have said before the committee. Personally, I feel it incumbent upon me to investigate this Bill very thoroughly on the floor of this House, seeing that we have prevented the ordinary public from going before the Banking and Commerce Committee. We will now have to take the whole responsibility and of necessity we must discuss it at greater length. More time will therefore be consumed than would otherwise be required, and I do not think that in the long run we will gain anything by proceeding to-night.


Wilfrid Laurier: I appeal to my hon. friends on the other side. I would not press the Bill unduly; it is not a government Bill, but it is in charge of a private member. If it were a government Bill I know the course I would take, but as it is not I cannot do anything.


George Taylor: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Taylor: If my hon. friend who has charge of this Bill desires to meet the 173
wishes of the House on both sides and does not want to sit until 6 o'clock in the morning, he will consent to have this Bill stand. We have an hour for private Bills tomorrow night, when the leader of the opposition will be here, and then it can come up again on Friday night.


Wilfrid Laurier: Can we conclude this Bill on Friday?


George Taylor: I will not say that, but the leader of the opposition will be here then and there will be a better chance of concluding it if we do not get into any trouble over it.


Alfred Henry Clarke: If it goes over until Monday the Senate will have no time to discuss it.


George Taylor: They will have a week and a half. Our friends on this side are as anxious to conclude the session as hon. gentlemen opposite, but unless this course is adopted we will not get through on the 19th.


Some hon. MEMBERS: M^e don t care.


George Taylor: We don't care on this side either; I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
I think it is unreasonable to press the Bill now. I appeal to the Prime Minister to prevail on his friends to accept this reasonable proposition, clear the Order Paper of all these Bills, some of which are important, and let them go to the Senate. This Bill should not delay all the others, and it is not reasonable to expect members to remain here from 11 in the morning until after 12 at night. We have not yet made a start on this Bill and the chances are we will not.


Wilfrid Laurier: I want to be reasonable also. This is not a government Bill but a private Bill, and the promoter of the Bill is the best judge of his own interests. If my hon. friend were to accede to the suggestion I made that we could dispose of this Bill during the present week, I would advise my hon. friend to agree to that, but I am met with a negative. If hon. gentlemen would say that we will dispose of it this week, I would advise my hon. friend (Mr. A. H. Clarke) to agree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the Prime Minister should be content to accept the assurance of members on this side that we have no desire to delay the Bill beyond a reasonable and fair discussion, and in all human probability it seems to me most likely it would get through this week, at the latest it will certainly get through next Monday. If the leader of the House would exercise his influence over one of his followers there would be little difficulty in controlling him to the extent of having the Bill delayed to-night



If, on the other hand, it is forced on against the wish of a large number of members who desire to have rest and to assist the leader of the House in closing the session, the experience of the past has been that we do not under such circumstances make the headway we ought.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend and I are old parliamentarians and we know that we can make progress and dispose of a matter in an hour's time or we can consume a great deal of time without making any progress. If he will say that the Bill will be put through this week I would say to agree.


George Taylor: On Friday night there will be an hour. If we do not finish tomorrow with a motion to complete the private Bills on Friday night.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good, we will do that.


George Taylor: You might take all Friday night.
Progress reported.,



MANITOBA RADIAL RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 141), respecting the Manitoba Radial Railway Company.-Mr. Molloy.
Alfred Henry Clarke: I did not understand that motion to carry. I think the majority was here.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. member had asked for a division I would have granted it. I gave ample time before declaring the motion to report progress carried.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I never heard it. I ask for a vote on it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I cannot grant a vote on that. My hon. friend understands that I have declared it carried.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I ask five hon. members to stand up and ask a vote. ,


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is too late.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I appeal to you for your ruling.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I gave ample time after asking whether it was carried, and I declared the motion carried. I cannot at this time when I have called the title of a new Bill reopen the question.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



THE THESSALON AND NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 104) respecting the Thessalon and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Smith.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


James Conmee: There are some questions with regard to this Bill which I would like to discuss and I do not want to discuss them to-night. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 91) to incorporate the Prudential Trust Company. -Mr. Macdonell.
James Conmee: This is a contentious Bill, and I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It appears that only Bills are allowed to go through which stand in the name of the hon. gentlemen on the other side. This is the second Bill from this side which is objected to. We ought to know where we stand. Both can play that game. We came to an understanding to clear the paper provided the Canada Life Bill were held over. But now it seems that that understanding is not to apply to Bills from this side of the House. Bills standing in the name of supporters of the government are to pass, but those promoted by members of the opposition are to stand. We are certainly not going to submit to that sort of thing.


James Conmee: This is a Bill incorporating a trust company. So far as I am concerned, I am opposed to it, and I do not feel disposed to discuss it at this late hour.
I was not aware that it was the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) who was promoting this Bill, and I am objecting to it on that account.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is your objection?


Mr. MILLER.: This Bill was before the Banking and Commerce Committee and was referred to a special committee and is probably the most contentious Bill that has come before a committee this session. Some of us have to meet at ten o'clock tomorrow morning for other business, and it Seems too bad that we should have to take up a contentious Bill.
Mr, LANCASTER. Some fifteen or twenty minutes ago the hon. gentleman was one of those who sang out the most loudly to rush through the Canada Life Bill.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: What were you saying ten minutes ago?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I was saying that we should not deprive the policy-holders in the Canada Life of an opportunity of being heard against the Bill. But in the present, case there can be no objection of that kind. This Bill was thrashed out in

committee and all heard. The hon. member from Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) does not want to deal with this Bill to-night. Well, we shall play the game all along the line. The hon. gentleman is breaking the arrangement made with the Prime Minister.


Haughton Lennox: We came to an understanding with the Prime Minister that every Bill on the Order Paper was to be cleared except the Canada Life. If any hon. gentleman was not content with the arrangement he should have said so at the time. If we are not to be kept faith with, we shall know what to do. We have passed several Bills on that clear understanding, and it is absolutely unfair that the hon. member for Rainy River should act as he is doing. He first took objection to the Bill in the name of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Smith). This hon. gentleman who is so anxious to get his own Bill through moves that the committee rise. Then we come to another Bill, we do not know who is promoting it. Does the Prime Minister think we are going down through all the other Bills after that? We are going to do nothing of the kind.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend puts the case in a manner which is not warranted by the facts. I suggested 'to the promoter of the Canada Life to postpone it until Friday evening, and to allow the Order Paper to be proceeded with. That does not mean that every Bill on the Order Paper must be taken up.


Haughton Lennox: The proposition was not made by the First Minister, m so many Words, to clear the Order Paper; but the proposition of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) was that we should proceed and clear the Order Paper, and that was assented to so far as silence could give eon-feant, and I presumed that was the understanding. The leader of the government did not express dissent, nor was any dissent expressed by any member of the House. If these Bills require considerable discussion, I can see a good reason why they should stand over.


George Perry Graham: Personally I think it is a good reason, when the chairman of such an important committee tells us this is a contentious Bill, and the promoter is absent as well, that it should stand over. Now, my hoh. friend has asked on several occasions, when the promoter was absent, that we should not proceed with the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
respecting the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company be concurred in.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to know what the recommendation is here. The Order Paper says the Bill is reported with a recomendation.


George Perry Graham: The amendment proposed by the Senate is this:
The Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company may construct a line of railway from a point on its line at or near 1 Lea ley-ville, thence in a generally easterly direction to a point on the Montmorency river near the mouth of the River Laval.
4. The limit to the amount of the securities which the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company may issue and secure under sections 136 and 146 of the Railway Act both inclusive, should be a total of $30,000 pei mile of the line hereby authorized and ot all lines heretofore authorized to be constructed, or constructed by the company or its predecessors bv amalgamation, including tlie amount of securities heretofore authorized: and such securities may be issued only J*1 proportion to the length of such lines of railway constructed or under contract to be constructed.


Mr LANCASTER.: That provides for an additional line and it may not have been covered by the notice which came before the Standing Orders Committee. It is a pretty serious thing to increase a line ol railway in the Senate, without a new notice.


Mr DUBEAU.: This Bill was referred to the Standing Orders Committee the committee made a report to the House, then the Bill was referred to the Railway Committee and the Standing Orders Committee reported that the notice was sufficient, ihe representatives of a company who were opposing the Bill before the Railway Committee did not object to this provision.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This seems to be an additional line of railway added by the Senate that was not provided for in the Bill as it passed the House of Commons. Did it come back to the House of Commons for consideration afteT the Senate assumed to make an amendment?


George Perry Graham: Yes, it came before the Railway Committee after the Senate had approved of it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendment made by the Senate to Bill (No. 81) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEOFFRION moved that amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 38)
of Canada. Mr. CASH.
ment.
miles
The
shall
I am opposed to this amend-amendment provides that ten be constructed this summer.
5487
[Stage Direction]
This is contrary to what has been done with other Bills and I do not see any use of it. This is a Bill of the Canadian Pacific Bailway and they are asking to construct ten miles.
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stands.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 157) for the relief of John Denison Smith-Mr. A. K. Maclean.
Bill (No. 158) respecting the Bank of Winnipeg.-Mr. Molloy.
Bill (No. 160) to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 161) to incorporate the Equity Fire Insurance Company-Mr. Macdonell.

Wilfrid Laurier: I no not think that is in order. That is not in order; this is not a public document.


Mr. FOSTER.: It could be moved by the unanimous consent of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not In order.


George Eulas Foster: If there is any objection, I will let it go as a notice of motion.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am informed that notice must be given of a motion of that kind.


George Eulas Foster: I shall let it go as a notice of motion.


David Henderson: A couple of days ago a private member on the other side of the House was permitted to make a motion without notice.
Bill (No. 140) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Ontario, Hudson Bay and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Schell.
Bill (No. 125) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company - Mr. Schell.
Bill (No. 138) respecting the Quebec Oriental Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: Trunk Pacific Bill.
The Grand


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 4, 1909.