1910-04-04

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company,	Limited.-Mr. Pardee.	.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Some members who take an interest in this Bill were unable to be present this morning. Would there be any objection to allowing it to stand until eight o'clock?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No objection.
Progress reported.
HAMILTON, WATERLOO & GUELPH RAILWAY.
House in committee on Bill (No. 79) respecting the Hamilton, Waterloo & Guelph Railway Company.-Mr. Harris.


Mr. BLAIN.: One or two of the members spoke to me about this Bill, wishing it might be left over until some time to-day at a further sitting of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let it stand until eight o'clock with the other one.



RESTIGOUCHE LOG DRIVING AND BOOM COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 150) respecting the Restigouche Boom Company, and to change its name to the Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company.-Mr. Reid (Restigouche).
On section 2,
Mr. DANIEL.: Has this Bill been reported favourably by the Private Bills Committee?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The copy I have says it is reported as amended by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: 
Mr. CARVELL.: Yes. There were representatives at the committee of the Boom Company, the riparian owners, the anglers and the fishermen. There was one change made at the request of some of the members of the committee, but all the others were made at the request of the interested parties, and when the Bill left the committee there was a thorough understanding among all the parties concerned. I may state that after consulting with Mr. Speaker, in whose county these works will be located, I propose to make two very slight amendments. One is to provide that there shall be no question that the man who rafts his logs will have the right to run them down the river without interference, and will not have to pay any charges, and the section 26 dealing with the expropriation of lands and rights. With these two slight amendments the Bill is now perfectly satisfactory to all parties concerned who are represented, and I think that all parties imaginable were represented before the committee either in person or by counsel.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask on what ground the committee reported that this was a work for the general advantage of Canada?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think those words were necessary, because the works are on both sides of an interprovincial river. But it was thought best by the committee to insert those words to avoid any question of jurisdiction. I may explain that for a great many years the lumber has been driven down the Restigouche river and has been boomed and rafted on the New Brunswick side. Ten years ago fifteen or twenty million feet of lumber came down the river. This year there will be at least 125,000,000 feet, and the booms are wholly inadequate to take care of that enormous quantity of lumber. Last year a large quantity went out to sea and some of it was lost. It is proposed to have all the lumber rafted down and boomed by the same company both on the Quebec side and on the New Brunswick side, so that I submit that this parliament alone will have jurisdiction without the insertion of those words.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not finding any fault with the project. I dare .say if may be a very useful one, as I understand that a combination is proposed of the various interests concerned in driving logs on this river for the purpose of doing the work more effectively than it has been done in the past. It is a perfectly legitimate proposition provided the rights of the public are preserved; but I do not think that the declaration that this is an undertaking for the general advantage of Canada ought to be lightly made. I have been of the opinion that on a good many occasions it has been too lightly made by this parliament. If it is not essential in this case, I would think it far better to omit it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: While the incorporators might possibly get all they are with-

out these words in the Bill, yet certain works must be performed wholly within the province of New Brunswick and others wholly in the province of Quebec. I have discussed the question with the solicitor of the company, and it is at his request that the words are left in the Bill.


Mr. LENNOX.: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works, who has paid some attention to this Bill, what he understands to be the meaning of these words in this section, ' nothing herein contained shall affect any action heretofore taken pursuant to the powers in such act contained.' Is that intended to refer to a legal action or an ordinary action?


William Pugsley: I would take it that it is intended to preserve the rights of all parties as they -exist under the New Brunswick statutes, whether any action has been taken either by lawrsuit or in any other manner.


Haughton Lennox: It seems to me that would be pretty hard to work out, because parties may have acquired a certain status by certain actions or steps that they have taken.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Does the Bill reserve to this company the tolls which are provided by the British North America Act?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The tolls under this Act are to be levied by by-law of the company year by year, and the by-law has to be approved by the Governor in Council.
On section 11, subsection 3,-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I propose to make a slight amendment to subsection 3, by inserting. after the word ' river,' in line 11, the following words: 'or the floating down the same of rafted logs.' There was a question in the minds of certain gentlemen in the county of Bonaventure as to whether they would have free access to float their logs down the river if they chose to do so themselves. Under the provisions of the different sections, all the logs that are turned into the river and are floating in the river, must be driven by the company paying the company whatever rates or tolls are levied according to the bylaws. But in order to make it sure that the owner of the logs can raft his logs and take care of them himself, -we have suggested this amendment.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Has the hon. member given notice of this amendment?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. But I may say that I do not think it is of sufficient importance to require notice. It has been drafted by Mr. Speaker and myself. The member for Restigouche (Mr. Reid) who is not here -at present, is interested on one side of the river and Mr. Speaker on the other side of Mr. CARVELL.
the river, and they have agreed that this amendment should be inserted. I do not think that the committee will feel that the matter is of sufficient importance to require the necessary notice. It is only done for the further protection to the small owner along the river who may have a few thousand feet of logs which he wishes to bring down himself, and not be subject to the tolls of the boom company.


Robert Laird Borden: The amendment seems to be in the public interest.
Mr. DEPUTY" SPEAKER. I presume I mav accept it as not being of serious importance, and in the absence of opposition.


Robert Laird Borden: It can be inserted by unanimous consent.


Haughton Lennox: I would ask the Minister of Public Works if he has given attention to this section to see that it properly protects the interests of the public on this navigable river; I am not prepared to say that it does not. I see there is a provision in it that it should be submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval.
Mr. PUGSLEY". I think the clause is in the usual form, which has been adopted in incorporating boom companies. A provision is made for handling logs by the company, and the tolls are to be submitted to the Governor in Council for approval. The amendment which the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) proposes, reserves the right to individaul owners to take care of their own logs if they wish to do so.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I may explain for the benefit of the committee, that this enterprise up to the present has been carried on entirely under a charter of the New Brunswick legislature. The increasing importance of the lumber trade in that district has rendered it necessary to utilize both sides of the river. It is expected that this year 125,000,000 feet of lumber will be floated down the Restigouche river, and application has been made to this parliament by this company for better facilities under a Federal charter. I have received an important petition signed by some 400 residents of the * county of Bonaventure asking that the rights of the public and the rights of the riparian owners along the river should be protected. I went to the Private Bills Committee and asked that a sub-committee be appointed to discuss the Bill. This was done and clauses 24, 25. 26, 27 and 28 were inserted at my request for the protection of the riparian owners and the free navigation of the Restigouche river. This amendment which is now under consideration was inserted at my request to remove all doubt that the main channel of the Restigouche river would remain open to the public, that no obstruction of any kind will prevent the free navigation by all

interested parties. This company is practically a combination of all the large lumber merchants of that district. The lumberman who commands 100,000 feet of timber becomes de facto a member of the company. The small farmer cannot become a member, but by this Bill his rights_are protected under the understanding that his logs are rafted under the same rules as any other logs. Three points were insisted upon by me and were assented to by the member for Carleton: first, the free navigation to the public generally; second, payment by the company of all damages incurred by the riparian owners either to their property or fishing rights, because the Restigouche is probably the most valuable salmon fishing river in eastern Canada, (the payment of damages is well protected, because the company cannot enter into any works of any kind without first giving security in the courts of the district for damages that may occur); third, the initiative in the arbitration proceedings would have to be taken by the company so that the farmers in the district would not have to face a powerful organization. I think that all things considered, although we do not obtain all we ask, we have a fair protection for the people of the district. I have several letters from people on both sides of the river, saying that as far as they can judge at present the rights of the public are fairly protected under this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the Bill leave it perfectly open to any one to drive logs down this river?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. If any owner of logs drives logs on the river within the driving limits, that is from the mouth of the Red?wick river down to the boom limits, they must be driven by the corporation, and the owner must pay tolls.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the tolls regulated in any way?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: By by-law which must be ratified by the Governor in Council.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that the member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) explained that the object of the amendment which he inserted this morning was to reserve the right to any person to raft and drive logs provided the logs were rafted and not set loose. No operations are to be carried on in this river without some uniform system. If the farmer will raft his logs he is allowed to drive them, but if he wishes to have them driven that must be done by 'the company and he must pay the company.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are the operations on the Restigouche intended to be carried on in the same way as similar operations have been carried on in the St. John river?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They are almost identical, in fact this Act is almost a copy of the amended or consolidated St. John river Act, which was passed three years ago.
On section 20,-compensation and damages for not removing logs. Logs stored to be sold after public notice, if default in payment of assessment.


Haughton Lennox: It has been stated that provision is made in the Bill that tolls should be subject to regulation. Will the tolls under this section 20 also be subject to some regulation? *


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is only to provide in case the owner of the logs fails to take away his logs in proper time. The hon. member (Mr. Lennox) will understand that if twenty-five or fifty million feet of logs are left on the hands of the boom company after being rafted, the company would be practically out of business, for they would have no storage room. To compel owners to take away their logs within seven days., it is provided that the company should have the right to sell them on giving due notice, and to take from the proceeds sufficient to pay rafting, booming, and incidental charges. But I take it that these are all covered by the section providing that the by-laws are to be approved by the Governor in Council.


Haughton Lennox: I thought that, under this section, they were given the right to charge for delay. The Bill says the company may-
-sell so mucli of the said logs as should be sufficient to pay the amounts due upon such assessments together with the extra cost of storing the said logs and the expense of keeping them and of the sale thereof and all other incidental expenses.	-
I think the provision is a proper one, so far as 1 know, but I fear there is danger that exorbitant charges might be made. Is it not possible they might keep the logs longer than seven days, and make the charge accordingly? And would this be covered by the provision with regard to the regulation of tolls generally?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can only say that the question has never been raised. Section 19 provides for an agreement or arbitration between owners and directors as to assessments. So, practically all the cost after the logs go through the boom are provided for under this section.


Haughton Lennox: This, I understand, is to provide in case the owner is probably in default. But cases of that kind might arise in which little or no moral blame would attach to the owner. Of course, I speak without knowing the proportions in this matter. I do not know what the storage for seven days on a given quantity of logs
til 75

would represent. Of course, if it is a very small matter, it is not worth discussing.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 1 think that under section 10 it is all provided for. Section 10 provides that the company may make bylaws fixing and regulating tolls and for the government of the company's affairs, but no by-law is to come into force unless and until it has been approved by the Governor in Council. I think this would cover all cases that might arise.
On section 21-Liability of company for logs lost by neglect: Logs lost otherwise to be secured at owner's expense.


Haughton Lennox: Is there anything in this section that makes the loss of logs prirna facie evidence of neglect on the part of the company, or is that left open?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is left open. This is a very rapid river in the spring and, no matter what precautions may be taken, there is alwavs the possibility ot logs getting under the booms by the force of the current. But, unless the company have been negligent in the ordinary sense, they would not be liable, and the question of fact as to negligence is to be decided in each case.


Haughton Lennox: But there is nothing stated making the fact of loss a presumption of negligence which the company would have to rebut?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, that is not specifically stated.
On section 26, expropriation of lands and rights.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I beg to move that subsection 2 of section 26 be amended by inserting the wrnrd ' fishing ' between the w'ords ' the ' and ' rights ' in the 36th line thereof. I may explain generally that this section 26 recognizes the right of the fisher-.men along the shore to proprietary rights in the foreshore or even beyond the foreshore. I think there is a doubt in the law as to whether there are these rights or not. However, the lumbermen are willing to allow him these rights and to pay him for them, leaving the amount to be determined by arbitration. But there was a fear on the part of some of the riparian owners that if these provisions were made too broad the company might expropriate fishing rights and then lease them or use them for fishing purposes. The intention of subsection 2 was that the company might expropriate these fishing stands or rights only to be used for the purpose of their undertaking, and that they would not have the right to use them for fishing purposes. The word ' fishing ' was omitted from the 36th line, and it would look,there as if they could use them for any purpose Mr. LENNOX.
whatever. As amended it will read that they may expropriate these rights ' only for the purpose of the exercise of the company's owm business and without right to the company to continue to exercise any of the fishing Tights so acquired.'
They can use the locus for their own business, but they cannot use it for fishing. That is the object of inserting the word ' fishing.'


Mr. SPROULE.: Do you not think that this will conflict with the rights of the province, if they have any rights, to control the fisheries along inland streams or lakes, or with federal rights, if there are any such rights?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I realize that the question might possibly arise, hut if we have no jurisdiction to grant rights, of course, no damage will be done. For a great many years, farmers along the shores have been fishing at certain places which they call fishing stands. They have obtained licenses yearly from the federal government and in the last year or two from the province of Quebec. The company are willing anyway to recognize that the owner has some rights, perhaps, by long usage-you might call it a prescriptive right-and they are willing to pay for them whatever they may be. I realize the point raised by the hon. member for East Grey, but I do not think any difficulty will arise therefrom. This parliament certainly would have the right to control the foreshore, and the land to be used as a booming privilege really is the foreshore of the Restigouche river, or below the mouth of the river along the bay and the harbour.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to ask the promoter of this Bill if he is satisfied that the riparian owners down there made no objection to this subsection 2 of section 26, and whether the company will have the right to expropriate their fishing rights under this Bill? This is a very valuable salmon fishing river.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They have objected very seriously for a long time, but the fishermen have all been offered a certain amount of money for whatever rights they might possess, in many cases amounting to thousands of dollars. The company altogether have offered the riparian owners something like $30,000 for their rights. In most cases settlements have been made. There are three on the Quebec side and six or seven op the New Brunswick side who have not yet been settled with. Every individual party was represented before the committee by Mr. Trueman, who used to be, judge of Probate in Albert county. He is now living in Dalhonsie. This clause was darfted by Mr. Trueman himself and inserted in the Bill by the committee exactly as he requested it to be. Therefore,'

this clause is really a clause drafted by the fishermen or the riparian owners- themselves.
On section 31; security for damages.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I gave notice the other day that I would move an amendment to be inserted as a new subsection of clause 28. It is as follows:
The costs of any arbitration under this Act shall be borne by the company, whether the same awarded is greater or less than the amount offered by the company.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) pointed out to me this morning that it was provided in this Bill that expropriation would be carried out under the Railway Act and that there is a clause in the Railway Act which says that if the company is condemned to pay more than it offered, the company must pay the cost of the arbitration. The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) who has legal training, says this amendment would be contrary to the prevailing jurisprudence, therefore I am not insisting, but this is the very cause of the difficulty between the riparian owners and the company. Wherever the parties have been able to agree, the riparian owners have been bought out. The Busteed estate, for instance, have sold out to the company. The riparian owners thought that the company should in any case be compelled to pay the cost of the arbitration, but if this principle is contrary to the jurisdiction it should not be insisted upon, and I will, therefore, withdraw the amendment. Of course, I make a great distinction between a railway and a river in regard to expropriation.



NUMBERING OF BILLS FROM THE SENATE.

Haughton Lennox: Could not some provision be made by which the Senate Bills, which are designated only by letters, should be numbered consecutively with our own Bills so that when they come to us it would be easier to find them on our files?


Mr. FIELDING.: I would suggest that the clerk of the House be asked to confer with the clerk of the Senate and see what could be done to meet the hon. gentleman's suggestion.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-T BIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 154) respecting the Northern Empire Railway Company.-Mr. White (Alberta).
Bill (No. 168) an Act respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. Goodeve.
Bill (No. 172) respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Black.


Mr. MONK:: 1.	Is Alphonse Gervais employed by the government in the Inland Revenue, Department of the Interior, or elsewhere?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, what is his salary, what are his duties, and is he engaged continuously in the service of the government?
3.	Does he work for the government at St. Hyacinthe or elsewhere?
4.	How mu-ch has he received from the government for salary or otherwise since his appointment?
5.	Is it true that for a year past he has owned and operated himself a moving picture hall?
6.	Was not the same Alphonse Gervais convicted in 1908 of fraudulent election practices?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	Alphonse Gervais is employed by the Inland Revenue Department.
2.	He was first employed April 1, 1901. His salary is $600 per annum. He is attached to the bonded factory survey.
3.	Yes; at St.' Hyacinthe.
4.	$4,816.42.
5.	The department is informed that Mr. Gervais owns and operates, in the evenings only, a moving picture show in St. Hyacinthe.
6.	The department has no knowledge.


QUEBEC HARBOUR.
Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE:: 1.	How many ocean merchant vessels visited the port of Quebec during the season of navigation 1908?
2.	What was the gross tonnage of these
vessels ?
3.	Under what flag did each of these vessels sail?
4.	How many of these vessels belong to the Canadian merchant marine, and what proportion of the tonnage do they represent?
5.	What frontage did the Quebec Harbour Commission allot in 1908, in order to permit merchant vessels to embark and land their passengers and goods on the quay?
6.	What warehouses and plant did the Quebec Harbour Commission allot in 1908 to facilitate the embarkation and landing of goods transported by these merchant vessels?
7.	What is the exact state of the frontage and facilities for storage and operation which the Quebec Harbour Commission has set aside in favour of the ocean transports for the season of navigation in 1910?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	For the year 1908-9 the number of vessels entered inwards from sea at the port of Quebec was 334.
2.	1,244,380 tons (registered tonnage).
3.	Of these 316 were British vessels, 3 were United States vessels, 9 were Norweg-

ian and Swedish vessels, 5 were Danish vessels, 1 was a Spanish vessel.
4.	The customs returns do not make a distinction between British registered and Canadian registered vessels.
5.	In the wet dock 1,000 lineal feet frontage for coal cargoes, 600 lineal feet frontage for general cargoes. In the tidal harbour, 1,200 lineal feet frontage for general cargoes. River face breakwater, 1,700 lineal feet frontage for passengers and goods. Point a Carey, 400 lineal feet frontage for general cargoes. Point a Carey inside berth 300 lineal feet frontage for coasting vessels. Shed accommodation, general freight, 225,965 superficial feet floor area. Cold storage, 100,000 cubic feet refrigerated space.
6.	No allotments of berths were made except to the Canadian Pacific Railway Empress boats, and the Dominion and Nova Scotia Coal Companies. The other lines of steamers were given each trip suitable berths.
7.	Available berths for sea-going vessels. In wet dock 3,100 lineal feet frontage; in tidal harbour, 2,310 lineal feet frontage; River front, 3,010 lineal feet frontage; total frontage, 8,420 lineal feet frontage. Shed accommodation 214,700 superficial feet floor area. Cold storage, none.


INDIAN INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to close the industrial school for Indian children at Regina?
2.	Under what religions denomination is it managed ?
3.	How many children are in attendance?
4.	What assistance is given in support of this school, or does the government pay the entire cost of support and maintenance?
5.	What was the cost of the building and equipment?


Hon. Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	YTes.
2.	The Presbyterian.
3.	Sixty-six.
4.	$145 per capita is paid for 100 pupils.
5.	$72,000.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR:: 1.	Is there an industrial school for Indian children at La Butte?
2.	If so, when was it erected?
3.	Under what religious denomination is it managed ?
4.	How many children are in attendance?
5.	What assistance is given in support of this school, or does the government pay the entire cost of support and maintenance?
6.	What was the cost of the building and equipment ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes, at La Butte.
2.	In 1906.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: 3.	The Roman Catholic.
4.	230.
5.	$120 per capita is paid for 235 pupils.
6.	$117,823.23.


DESIGNS FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Did the Public WTorks or any other department of the government institute a plan competition for the erection of the proposed departmental and justice buildings in Ottawa ?
2.	Did the government accept any plan or design? If so, who was the successful architect, and how many plans or designs were put in, and by whom?
3.	WTas any premium or award paid to the successful architect?
4.	Has the government set aside such successful design, and is the planning and carrying out of the work now to be done by the architectural staff of the Department of Public Works?	.
5.	If the successful design has been set aside, what is the reason for such change, and does not the government consider this change a breach of good faith with the architects who tendered ?
Hon. \VM. PUGSLEY:
1 Y es.
2.	(a) No. The competition called for competitive designs for a justice and a departmental building, and four prizes were to be awarded to the four best designs submitted, 'the four successful designs to become the absolute property of the government'.
(b) Twenty-nine designs submitted:
1.	Bella Campbell, Fenelon, Manitoba;
2.	A. G. McAdam, Halifax, Nova Scotia;
3.	John Gemmill, Toronto, Ontario; 4 and 5. Finley & Spence, Montreal; 6. Sproatt & Rolpli, Toronto; 7. M. Perrault, Montreal; 8. J. A. Ewart, Ottawa, Ontario; 9. J. B. McRae, Ottawa; 10. Canon Bouillon, Ottawa; *11. Darling & Pearson, Toronto; 12. Geo. W. Gowinlock, Toronto; 13. P. S. Gregory, Ottawa; 14. J. S. McLaren, Vancouver,* British Columbia; 15. Horwood & Taylor, Ottawa; 16. H. R. Barber, Toronto; 17. A. H. Chapman, Toronto; *18. Saxe & Archibald, Montreal, province of Quebec; 19. S. F. and IV. A. Peters, Winnipeg; 20. M. McKean, Moncton, New Brunswick; 21. John M. Lyle, Toronto; 22. J. A. Thompson, Ottawa; *23. E. and W. S. Maxwell, Montreal; 24'. Hutchison & Wood, Montreal; 25. Routhier & Lefort, Ottawa; 26. Jas. Fou-lis, Ottawa; 27. Gordon & Helliwell, Toronto; *28. Brown & Vallance, Montreal; 29. No name.
*Design recommended for prizes.
3.	Yes, to the first four designs recommended by the assessors.
4.	(a) Not one of the four designs for which prizes were awarded was adopted, (b) Yes.

5.	(a) Not one of the designs submitted was considered suitable, (b) No.


TREE PLANTING ON TURTLE MOUNTAIN TIMBER RESERVE.
Mr. SCHAFFNER:: 1.	Has there been any effort made to produce trees in the Turtle mountain timber reserve during the years 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909, either by tree planting or sowing of seed?
2.	How many men, if any, were employed in said tree planting or sowing of seed during the years 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909?
3.	What was the name of each person employed in planting trees or sowing seed on said reserve, and what amount of money was paid each person so employed during the years 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909?
4.	Has there been an assistant timber inspector in the Turtle mountain timber reserve either permanent or temporary during 1906,
1907,	1908 and 1909? If so, who has been employed and how much money has been paid
- to each such assistant?
5.	What has been the result of the tree planting or sowing of seed in said reserve up to the end of the year 1909?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	No effort was made in 1906 and 1907. In the spring of 1908 a small experimental sowing of several species was made. In the spring of 1909 a small nursery bed was made, where seed of white spruce and jackpine gathered in the previous fall by fofest rangers in Manitoba was sown.
2.	None in 1906 and 1907. One man in
1908,	two in 1909.
3.	C. A. Walkinshaw, the forest ranger-in charge of the reserve. Salary $100 per month. Time in 1908 not given. Seventeen days in 1909. John Lemon, 17 days in 1909 at $2 per day.
4.	The persons employed on the reserve
for fire ranging, cutting fire guards and timber inspecting are as follows:	1906,
George Maddas. $2; Wm. Maddas, $2; Chas. Calder, $3; J. Reul, $2; D. McIntyre, $4; John Toles, $23; John Hamilton, $321.	1907, Wm. Pitt, $140; David
Davidson, $96.	1908, Wm. Turner, $198;
Wm. Pitt, $52; David Davidson, $252.50; Thos. Scott, $151; L. Racine, $24; John Lemon, $214.	1909, John Lemon, $377.50;
Louis Racine, $37.
5.	The seed of all the species sown in
1908	germinated, but it did best in places partly sheltered and not so well in more open spots. The last report for the year
1909	from the forest ranger in charge of the reserve states that on inspecting the place sown he found numerous green heads in the grass which were looking in good condition. A count of the trees was.not made to determine the actual number.
A small nursery was started in the spring of 1909 with seed of white spruce and jackpine which had been collected by th*
forest rangers in Manitoba in the fall of 1908. The seed germinated well, but the plants did not survive satisfactorily owing the extreme heat and dry weather, and to the fact that the forest ranger's services being required elsewhere, he could not give them thorough care. The seed sown in the grass did not germinate, probably owing to the heat and dry weather.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-ELECTRICAL POWER AT RIVIERE DU LOUP.
Air. GAUVREAU asked:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Railway Department to use certain water-powers at Riviere du Loup to develop electrical energy, which is needed for its workshops, or to obtain electricity from the town of Fraserville?
2.	If so, what quantity of electrical power does the department propose to have for the use of its workshops?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAAI.: The matter is under consideration.


LAND PURCHASED BY CITY OF BRANDON.
Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	Does section 6, township 5, range 7, west 1st, belong to the government? If not, to whom was title issued and when?
2.	What consideration did the government receive for said land?
3.	Does the government know how this land came into possession of the city of Brandon? If so, how and when?


Air. OLIVER:: 1.	No; title issued to the city of Brandon on the 17th of May, 1909.
2.	The east half of section 28,' township 10, range 19, west of 1st meridian, which was revested in the Crown by the city of Brandon.
3.	In exchange, under the authority of an Order in Council dated 9th August, 1900, for the east half of section 28, township 10, range 19, west of first meridian, which the municipal authorities of the city of Brandon purchased from the then owner and had conveyed to the Crown, to be used for the purpose of an Indian industrial school, as section 6, township 5, range 7, west 1st meridian, which had been set apart for that purpose, was found to be unsuitable.



EXCHEQUER COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 159) to amend the Exchequer Court Act.-Mr. Aylesworth-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. AYLESWORTH.: This is a Bill which has been passed by the Senate in amendment of the Exchequer Court Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would this extend to any such line, leased line, or line taken over by the Intercolonial? The Bill refers to the Prince Edward Island railway explicitly, thus making a distinction there. But we have passed an Act giving the power to take over other lines. Would the Bill cover these lines also?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I can only say that if these lines fall within the description of the Intercolonial or Prince Edward Island railway, the liability would exist, but not otherwise. This Bill is limited to the construction, maintenance or operation Mr. AYLESWORTH.
of the Intercolonial railway and the Prince Edward Island railway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose, for instance, that, by the leasing of some line, the Intercolonial were extended to Georgian bay. That leased line would become part of the Intercolonial system, but would it be a part of the Intercolonial railway under this Bill? It seems to me there might be a difference.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am afraid I am not able to say what view the court might take of the position of a leased line. Much might depend on the special terms of the lease under which the road was being operated. One line might be held to fall properly within the description of the Intercolonial railway, and another might not. The special circumstances in each particular case would have to be considered by the court if the question arose.
. Mr. SPROULE. Why would it not be proper to apply it to the whole system as well as to a portion of it?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I can only say that I did not frame this Bill. It has come from the Senate, and has been the result, from what I have seen of the proceedings there, of a good deal of discussion. It was introduced in quite a different form, and ultimately took the form in which it is now before us. I have not had the advantage of any discussion with the gentleman who introduced it in the Senate, but simply have taken charge of it when it came to this House, because it was a measure relating to the disposition of legal matters.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to have an explanation of the position which this Bill occupies as regards the government. It is introduced as a government measure, and is listed here under the head of 1 Government Orders.' I understood-and I do not know whether other members of the committee have understood it in the same way -that all the Bills that come to us in this way are government measures, though they may not have been introduced in parliament by the minister whose names they respectively beaT. For instance, I imagine that when we had a Bill under the name of the Minister of Justice, that meant that it was a government measure originating with the government and particularly, as a matter of actual detail, originating with the Minister of Justice. I was going to ask about that before any statement had been made by the minister. The minister said this Bill was passed by the Senate with certain objects. He further makes that clear by saying in the end:
I have not framed this Bill: it was introduced by a gentleman in the Senate.
I think he said in effect that it was nut in his name. That may be a proper prac-

tice, I will not say it is not, because I have not had sufficient experience to pronounce upon it, but I am prepared to give my idea about it. I would not have thought it was a proper practice. I do not understand that it is proper or can be proper that a Bill should be presented to this House to all intents and purposes marked as a government measure,, as something that has originated, say with the Minister of Justice, be brought in as a government measure, get its place in this committee as such, have precedence as a government measure, and yet not be a government measure. That is what this is. It originated with some individual in the Senate more or less responsible'-probably less- and it is then fathered by the Minister of Justice for better or for worse. It evidently does not fill the condition it ought to fill for the reason that,, as the minister admits, it may not cover, it probably does not cover, the whole government system of railways. As my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) has pointed out, there is no good reason why it should not cover the whole system; if it is a good measure it ought to apply to the whole system. So we have the minister putting through a Bill that is not his own, except for the accidental circumstance here adverted to. It is not as bad as the minister forcing through, for instance, the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Bill, but it does not seem to me to be right, and I would like to have an explanation and to know if that is a proper practice. It is not tlje only Bill placed under similar circumstances among the government orders. Whether the others are in the same condition or not I do not know. There are one or two in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding).


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The remarks I made a moment ago were in answer to the question of the hon. member lor East Grey (Mr. Sproule) as to whether this Bill did not extend to other lines of railways than those mentioned on the face of the Bill. I gave the exact and accurate answer to that inquiry. I did not frame the Bill, the Bill was introduced into the Senate,, not as a government measure, but by a member of the Senate who is not a member of the government. It was passed by the Senate in its present shape after much discussion. I have moved the second reading of it and adopted it as a measure which I am quite prepared to father and for which I am quite prepared to take the responsibility. If any hon. gentleman thinks it does not go far enough he is at liberty to move an amendment, and if that amendment is carried by this House it will go back to the Senate as an amendment so made for the consideration of that body. But this Bill as it stands is one that I present on behalf 197
of the government as an extent to which the government is prepared to go in this matter.


Haughton Lennox: This does not meet the case. The point is that there must be some fair treatment of members of the House and of the Senate. A private member introduces a Bill very much in the public interest, recognized at least by the public as in the public interest, or a senator may do so, but he cannot get it through. Is it right that fish should be made of one and fowl of another, and that the Minister of Justice or another minister of the Crown should take up a private Bill and give it that precedence that it has by reason of being a government Bills, introduce it into this House, put it among government orders and not say a word about it unless such words as may accidentally fall from him in the course of discussion. It seems to me that this kind of thing will lead to a very serious abuse. It is not treating the House fairly to introduce a Bill in that way without an announcement to that effect, and the mere statement that the minister is prepared to assume responsibility for it does not meet the whole question. Supposing that the government have a perfect power to do this kind of thing, I doubt the expediency, the propriety or the fairness of such a course. I do not think it is giving a fair chance to members of the House and of the Senate to stand on equal terms. If the government will say that they will take every Bill introduced by a private member and put it through the House after the time at which public Bills introduced by ordinary members can be put through, well and good, but to leave it in the position that supporters of the government, members who have the sympathy of the government, can get Bills through and others cannot, is not fair.


Wilfrid Laurier: 

my hon. friend will not be surprised if I tell him that measures which might have merit in his eyes might have no merit in mine.


Haughton Lennox: There is no doubt about it.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a measure which has merits in the eyes, 1 believe, of my hon. friend and of the government also, and for that reason it has been adopted by the Minister of Justice, who thought he was doing a good thing in adopting it. I think my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule) is the first to agree with him. The only criticism of that hon. gentleman was that the measure did not go far enough. I am prepared to say there is a good deal to be said in favour of the contention of my hon. friend from Grey, but the Minister of Justice did not consider whether or not it went far enough; so far as it goes-, it is satisfactory to every one in the House, and I think for that reason it ought to be adopted.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it unfortunate that we should leave the measure with the anomaly that an action may be brought in the Exchequer Court with regard to damages on one portion of the Intercolonial Railway system and not with regard to damages on another portion, so that there is redress for a sufferer on one portion and not on another.


Wilfrid Laurier: The criticism of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) is right; for my part, I agree with him. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) has said nothing to the contrary. He said that he would not be prepared to say that the Bill would not cover the case put forward by the hon. member for East Grey. I am giving my own judgment. I would not put my opinion against that of the Minister of Justice, but, as I understand it, the moment a line of railway is leased by the government and brought under the administration of the Intercolonial railway, it would be covered by this legislation. The Minister of Justice has had more experience in these matters than I have had, and he would not go as far as I in expressing his opinion, but if it were to turn out that I have taken too sanguine a view of the matter and that this Bill does not cover the point of my hon. friend, I see no reason why we should not extend it later on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think we should make it plain now.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
At one o'clock, House took recess.


Wilfrid Laurier: House resumed at three o'clock.



CURRENCY ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide for a revision and amendment of the Currency Act, chapter 25, of the Revised Statutes.
Further resolved, that the standard for gold coins of the currency of Canada be such that of one thousand parts by weight, nine hundred shall be of fine gold and one hundred of alloy; and the standard for silver coin shall be such that of one thousand parts by weight nine hundred and twenty-five shall be of fine silver and seventy-five of alloy; that the standard weight for gold coins of the denomination of ten dollars in the currency of Canada be two hundred and fifty-eight grains, and the standard weight for a silver coin of the denomination of fifty cents be one hundred and eighty grains, and for other gold coins and silver coins proportionate weights respectively; that the Minister of Finance be authorized to issue out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund such sums as _ may be necessary for the purchase of bullion in order to provide supplies of coin for the public service ; and that the cost, charges and expenses incident to carrying out the provisions of any Act founded upon these resolutions be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
William Stevens Fielding: This resolution is a necessary step towards the introduction of a Bill to revise and amend the Currency Act. The amendments, while necessary, are not very, important, and I have no reason to suppose they will be contentious.


Robert Laird Borden: What do the proposed amendments amount to?


William Stevens Fielding: The main change is to enable us to carry out the intention of the government to provide a gold currency for Canada. There is a provision in the existing law for a gold currency, but it is found not to be very workable. The currency of Canada is on a gold basis, and as we all know, the British sovereign has the standard value of four dollars eigthy-six and two-thirds cents. We have in reality a second gold standard, the difference being so slight that it has not hitherto been deemed necessary to call attention to it. As a matter of fact the American gold coins are legal tender in Canada, and for ordinary purposes it is the American gold coin and not the British gold coin that is used in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: How are the American gold coins legal tender in Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: They are, and have been for many years, legal tender under our Currency Act.	There being thus
two gold standards it might naturally be assumed that they would be proportionately the same value, but they are not exactly the same. There is a fraction of dif-

ference, not large enough to affect commercial transactions, but large enough to demand consideration in a Currency Act. If we should make the Canadian five dollar. gold piece on the basis of the British sovereign at the value of four dollars eighty-six and two-thirds cents, we would be producing a coin intrinsically of less value than the American $5 piece, and as we have, like the United States, a decimal coinage, it would be manifestly inconvenient if our $5 gold piece should be intrinsically of less value than theirs. The effect of the change is that we shall make our $5 gold piece of just a trifle more value than it would he if we made it on the basis of the British sovereign. Therefore, the American $5 gold piece and ours will be intrinsically of the same value. It would no doubt be found convenient in time that these coins should be interchangeable across the border, although I do not know that our American neighbours would likely make ours a legal tender as we did theirs. Perhaps the time may come when we shall no longer need to make the American gold coins a legal tender; but it is legal tender now, and the trade and commerce of the country has found it advantageous. We propose to make the gold coin of Canada of a quality, weight, fineness, &c., which will correspond exactly with the American gold coin.


Robert Laird Borden: What would he the exact value of the British sovereign upon the same basis?


William Stevens Fielding: The difference is very fractional. We shall still recognize the British sovereign as four dollars and eighty-six and two-thirds cents, and I think the actual value is four dollars eighty-six cents and some-small fraction. The difference is so small that it will not affect ordinary transactions, hut in a Currency Act we must take notice of it. Another point is that if we were to make a $5 gold piece on the basis of the British sovereign, four dollars and eighty-six and two-thirds cents, we would have a coin which in weight could only be expressed in most inconvenient decimals. It is advantageous that the weight of the coin should be such that it can be conveniently accounted for in all operations. These are the main changes although some few other changes are made for the improvement of the Act.
Resolution reported, read a second time and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 195) respecting the Currency.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Hon.  A. B.@: AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) moved second reading of Bill (No.
197i
138) to amend the Customs and Fisheries Protection Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman explain.	.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The object of this Bill is to supply an omission from the present law on the subject. The statute relating to the protection of customs and fisheries, chap. 47, Revised Statutes of Canada, provides that in the case of a seizure of goods, or of a ship, every penalty or forfeiture may be recovered, or enforced in the Exchequer Court, on its admiralty side, or in any Superior Court in the province, within which the cause of prosecution arose. Pursuant to that provision of the statute the Exchequer Court has promulgated its rules of procedure, but some of the provincial courts, and possibly all of them, have net done anything of that nature. The result has been that when proceedings to enforce a penalty or forfeiture of this character have been instituted in provincial courts there has been no practice laid down by any rules which could be followed, and such proceedings have, in consequence, in some instances, proved nugatory, and the advantage of being able to resort to provincial courts has been thus practically taken away. This Bill proposes to remedy that defect by adding as a subsection to the section I have referred to, a provision that in so far as there are no general rules made by the Superior Court of any province, the practice and procedure in cases of this character in the provincial court shall be regulated by the practice and procedure for the time being in force in the Exchequer Court.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN moved the second reading of Bill (No. 194) to amend the Militia Pension Act. He said:	This
Bill is based upon resolutions which were explained and discussed very fully in Committee of the Whole.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 6B, subsection (e),
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: This is a new provision, and is the most important provision of the Bill. It is proposed to allow an officer who is transferred from the active militia to the permanent force, to count on retirement one half the time he has served in the active militia up to ten years and not more, though

he is not to count that service at all until he has served ten years in the permanent force. It is often very desirable to utilize in the permanent force the services of officers who have distinguished themselves in the active militia, but such officers have been very slow about entering the permanent force, because no portion of their time of service in the active militia counted for a pension, and very often they would not think of going into the permanent force until they had reached the age of 45 years or over, so that it was impossible for them to secure a pension, the minimum service for a pension being 20 years. But under this provision, an officer of the age of 50 who has distinguished himself in the active militia, say a lieutenant-colonel could come into the permanent force and serve his ten years there before reaching the age of 60; and if he had served 20 years in the active militia, he would be entitled to count ten years of that service, so that at the age of 60 he would have 20 years' service to his credit, and be able to retire with a pension. It is thought to be in the public interest that this should be encouraged, and we believe it will be greatly to the advantage of both services.


Frederick William Borden: Is there any definition of the word ' force '?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, it means the permanent force.
On section 2,


Frederick William Borden: Subsection 2 of section 12 of the Militia Pension Act reads as follows:
Time served in His Majesty's regular forces may be counted towards a pension in the case of non-commissioned officers and men transferred to the^ permanent force in connection with the taking over by the government of Canada of the garrisons at Halifax and Esquimalt.
To that we add,
And in the case of such non-commissioned officers and men as have been or may hereafter be transferred from His Majesty's regular forces to the permanent force under arrangements made between His Majesty's government and His Majesty's Canadian government as to the pensioning of such non-commissioned officers and men.
It is simply extending the application of this provision to the non-commissioned officers, and men of the British army who may come into our force, it allows their time to count. At present the men do not contribute towards the pension, neither here nor in England. As a large number of our permanent force come from the British army, it is convenient to draw our men from that force. The object of this provision is to enable us to give due consider-Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
ation to such men, and an opportunity of counting the time which they have served in the British army.


Robert Laird Borden: What are the arrangements referred to?


Frederick William Borden: That would be by order in council, or exchange of despatches between the war office and the colonial office, and this government.


Robert Laird Borden: Have any arrangements been actually made, or does this refer to arrangements that may be made in the future?


Frederick William Borden: I think the arrangements are now pending.
On section 3,


Frederick William Borden: This includes our own men who have served in South Africa, and other places, applying the same rules that apply to the officers.


Mr. CROCKET.: Does time count from the date they are first enlisted in Canada, in the case of the South African men?


Frederick William Borden: I think so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In subsection (e) of 6B section 1, what do these words mean,
' half the time served in the active militia other than the force?'	*'


Frederick William Borden: That means the active militia. The active militia strictly includes the permanent force, the permanent force is a branch of the active militia; so those who have served in the permanent force are already provided for. This is providing now that service in the active militia shall also be counted to the extent of one-half.


John Waterhouse Daniel: But the word ' permanent ' is not there.


Frederick William Borden: Where the word ' force ' in the Pension Act occurs it is explained to mean the permanent force:
(e) Time served in the employment of the government of Canada in connection with the militia stores of Canada prior to the organization of the ordnance stores corps.


Robert Laird Borden: What does that mean?


Frederick William Borden: Formerly the men who served in what is now known as the ordnance stores served as civilians. They were men really too old to enlist in the ordnance corps when the ordnance corps was established, and it is thought that their time ought to count, and that they should receive a small pension. There are only some half dozen such cases.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You do not include officers of the Northwest Mounted Police Force. Why do you make that distinction?


Frederick William Borden: We do not include time served in the active militia, either. The men of the Northwest Mounted Police do not contribute to the pension fund, only the officers contribute, and the same' way with the permanent force.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the officers I am speaking of. You say time served in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police shall be included in the time of service of an offi-. cer for the purposes of the Act, and when you extend this clause of section 12 of the old Act, you do not include them, although you include all the others.


Robert Laird Borden: The reason it was not included in section 3, I think, is that section 3 deals only with men, and not with officers. But the principle my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) raises is as to the service of the men in the Northwest Mounted Police. As I understand the point, it amounts to this-that if you give to officers the advantage of including time which they have served in the Northwest Mounted Police, why should you not give to men the advantage of the time that they have served in the Northwest Mounted Police?


Frederick William Borden: I do not think the condition is likely to arise as regards men. The Act has been very carefully drafted to meet all the requirements of the department, and I feel sure that it does so. I can see no Teason why the Northwest Mounted Police might not be included, but I feel sure it is unnecessary. However, I will look into that matter. The Bill might be allowed to go through, and it will be very easy, at another session of parliament, to amend it if necessary. But I am sure it is mot necessary.


Mr. WALLACE.: Why should not it include non-commissioned officers and men who go into the permanent force?


Frederick William Borden: It will in this way: If a man who has served in the active militia, in the ranks or as a noncommissioned officer, should join the permanent force and be promoted to the rank of a warrant officer, then his time would count. But I think it would be very im convenient-there would be so many difficulties in proving service-and very undesirable that we should count the time of men as privates in the permanent force who have served as privates or non-commissioned officers in the active force.


Thomas George Wallace: How about the man who has been sergeant-major in an infantry regiment for a number of years, and who goes into the permanent force and becomes a sergeant?


Frederick William Borden: If he should join the permanent force and be promoted.
as he undoubtedly would oe, to the rank of a warrant officer, when it came time to pension him, his time served in the active militia, if he could prove it-and undoubtedly a man of that class could do so-would be counted towards the pension.


Thomas George Wallace: There are so few promoted to be warrant officers, it seems hardly fair.


Frederick William Borden: A great many are appointed warrant officers.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would ask if, in the Pension Act, there is provision for pensioning non-commissioned officers and men?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. And non-commissioned officers and men are not called upon to contribute in any way. The officers contribute five per cent annually-it is deducted from their pay. But non-commissioned officers and men who have served twenty years are pensioned without having contributed anything.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



ROCKY MOUNTAINS PARK OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the regulations of the 21st day of June, 1909, intituled: ' Regulations of the National Parks of Canada/ which were passed on the date above mentioned by His Excellency the Governor in Council, under authority of section 4 of the Rooky Mountains Park Act, being chapter 60, R.S.C., 1906, copies of which regulations, as well as the necessary order in council, have been laid before this House, are, in so far as they relate to the Rocky Mountains Park of Canada, approved by this House, in accordance with provisions of subsection 3 of section 5 of the said chapter 60.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of Interior).: This resolution is required in order to give legal effect to the amendment and consolidation of the regulations governing the national park which were passed last year under authority of council. The original regulations under which the national park is controlled were passed many years ago, and, of course, before the park had been in operation. Since that time, it has been found that in certain particulars they fell short of the requirements, and in other particulars they were perhaps, a little in advance. So, after many years of enforcement there was a general amendment and consolidation which we now ask the House toi give effect to. The provision of the National Parks Act is that regulations which are passed and given effect to in the first place by the Governor in Council must be endorsed by parliament in order to be

maintained in effect. The principal changes that are made include the following:
The reservation of a strip of 100 feet along all bodies of water in the park.
Changes, mostly of a verbal nature, are made in clauses relating to erection of buildings, defacement or removal of natural objects, trees, structures, &e., and also providing for the seizure and disposal of any timber, minerals, &c., taken unlawfully.
New clauses are added regulating the use of fire in the open air which was not covered by the old regulations. They require precautions in using fire, and make provision for proper equipment of locomotives and clearing of railway right of way. These clauses are similar to those adopted for the forest reserves.
A new clause provides that camping parties must clean up camping grounds before leaving.
For the villages in the park, regulations are made requiring connection with the sewer, preventing loafing on the streets or obnoxious or disorderly conduct.
Changes in details are made in regard to pasturage and hay so as to make the regulations work satisfactorily. None are of special importance.
Changes are made in the dues for sand, stone, gravel and lime, reducing them slightly.
Hot Springs: The change is a provision suggested by Mr. John Galt, civil engineer, that no further licenses for the use of water from the Hot Springs should be granted except by special order in council.
A number of additional occupations and businesses, such as restaurants, theatre's, circuses, &c., have been brought under the license system so as to secure fuller control. The regulation for licensing guides for camping parties has -been enlarged so as to place more responsibility on guides and place them under more control.
Sale of liquor: It is merely provided that liquor shall not be sold without a license. This leaves out additional provisions of the old regulations which are better covered by provincial legislation.
Persons in the Dark are required to answer inquiries of rangers or game guardians and livery stables, and outfitters must keep records open to rangers of parties sent out by them.
It is provided that dogs shall not run at large; that no firearms shall be kept or carried, except by duly authorized game guardians, unless properly sealed; that there shall be a right of search where game is suspected of being had in possession unlawfully; that not more than fifteen fish shall be taken in one day and none less than six inches in length. The appointment of game guardians is provided for.
The Rocky Mountains Park Act provided Mr. OLIVER.
an extreme penalty of $50 for violation of regulations. The old regulation reduced this to $20. It is considered that $50 is not too large a penalty for serious offences.
The new regulations have been in force since the beginning of last summer and have been found to meet the requirements. Of course from time to time amendments will have to be made, but our experience is that the amendments contained in these regulations were necessary and desirable, and we are asking the House to confirm them.


Robert Laird Borden: I submitted these regulations to some of my friends who are more familiar with these matters than I am. I do not think they are in the House to-day, and perhaps the minister will allow this to stand until to-morrow. What is the general policy of the government in regard to the leasing of portions of these parks for residential purposes? Is it purely a matter of application and arrangement with each individual person who may desire to procure a lot, or are the properties disposed of by public auction, or in some such way as to give equal opportunities to all persons who may desire to avail themselves of such privileges?


Frank Oliver: The policy, of course, is that there shall not be any general acquiring of residences throughout the park; it is a reservation for the benefit of the public, and of course in its very nature it is not intended to be dotted here and there with occupation. So, the policy of the government is not to allow residences to be established except in definite locations where they will be most convenient, and where they will be most required. A person would not be allowed to establish a residence in some attractive place in the park simply because he desired to do it. It is felt that the natural beauty of the park should be preserved. To allow occupation the townsite of Banff is laid out, and within that townsite the lots which have been surveyed are leased at a certain fixed rental for a fixed term of years. There is no competition, the rentals are scheduled, and whoever wishes to apply for a lot gets it on the application, and on the conditions as to residence and construction, and observance of the laws, &e. that are contained in the lease. Canmore, a coal mining town, I think was established before the park was set apart, so that there is private ownership of property in some portions of Can-more, but so far as the jurisdiction of the government is concerned, the lots are leased. Some time ago an amendment was made which permitted the government to sell lots in those towns, but so far that provision has not been availed of, and all the lots are under rental in both Banff and Canmore. Bankhead, a coal mining

town, is under the control of the Canadian Pacific railway, but . the principle there is the same. Wherever it is found necessary or desirable to permit residence, as in the case of these towns, a survey is made, and the lots are leased for a term of years under certain conditions and rental. Outside of this, permanent occupation is not permitted.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand, the opportunities for application are the same to all persons.


Frank Oliver: Oh, yes.


Robert Laird Borden: The rules are general rules applicable to all persons who may desire to acquire one of these lots.
I presume there are restrictions as to the character of buildings, &c.?


Frank Oliver: Of course in the beginning when the town was laid but it was not desirable or possible to impose any serious restrictions, and as a consequence some parts of the town of Banff are perhaps not quite what might be desired. But under the administration as it is now, permission is only given for buildings of a certain size, and character, and the lessee must conform to the regulations in the matter of obeying the rules laid down or his lease is forfeited.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Has the minister considered whether he has any jurisdiction in making regulations in reference to the protection of game, other than what the proprietor or a person having the fee simple to that land would have?


Frank Oliver: 
Mr. ROCHE.: I would like to ask the minister if the policy he has just enunciated in regard to the disposition of lots for residential purposes in this national park is also applicable to the forest reserves. There are some very desirable locations in some of these forest reserves. For instance, in the Riding Mountain timber reserve, Clear lake is a beautiful lake, it is free of timber, and I am aware that several persons have applied for lots for the purpose of having summer cottages.
Is this policy for the disposal of lots for such purposes applicable to forest reserves in the same way as it would be in the national park?


Frank Oliver: I might explain that the purpose of the reservation of the Rocky Mountains park is entirely different from the purpose of the forest reserves. The reservation of the Rocky Mountains park was for the purpose of pleasure. It was placed under reservation to be used by the people of Canada, and those of the rest of the world who wished it as a pleasure park, and so, in our regulations, control and administration of the Rocky Mountains park, we contemplate the presence of people, the coming and going of people, in, we hope, very large numbers; whereas, the forest reserves were set apart without having in view the presence of people. Rather the absence of people was in contemplation, the object being to secure the growth, preservation and reproduction of timber. So that, the policy .of the one is entirely different from the policy of the other. At the same time the question that my hon. friend has raised does exist, or is raised, in regard to a number of forest reserves, and I may say that we propose to measurably apply the policy regarding pleasure parks to certain parts of the forest reserves such as the case which my hon. friend has mentioned. We propose to do something of the kind with regard to the reserve that was created at the Waterton lakes in the Rocky Mountains near the international boundary line. Wherever, in any forest reserve, some portion is found that can be used for pleasure purposes without endangering the general purposes for which the reserve was set apart, it would be the policy of the government to take such measures as would meet the case. I am not able to say whether special legislation will be required or not. I am not sure whether the provisions of the Forest Reserve Act would permit us to make an arrangement such as that which applies



G199 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
to the Rocky Mountains park, but it is a matter of detail. If we are not permitted to do that by the Forest Reserves Act as it stands at the present time I have no doubt that the House will agree, in due course, to legislation that will enable us to do so.
John Graham Haggart: Does the minister remember the terms on which the park was taken over, and does he remember whether there was a declaration that it was a work or a reservation for the general benefit of the people of Canada?


Frank Oliver: I have not the Act in my
hand, but I am satisfied that there was such a declaration.


John Graham Haggart: Well, that may alter the argument a little, but if there were not something of the kind the local government could not convey their power of legislating with reference to game on that particular portion of their territory, and regulations in reference to game would be void.


Frank Oliver: There is an arguable question. Even although the park was set apart for the general advantage of the people of Canada, and I am satisfied that the Act so declared, I am afraid that the provision was not carried forward into the Autonomy Bill creating the province of Alberta. But, it is recognized to be desirable from all points of view that the game should be protected, and that it is necessary, and desirable that provision for actually taking care of the game should be made, and should be made by this government in pursuance of its policy of preserving the park as a pleasure resort. While friction might arise, I think the probability is very distant; certainly it has not arisen, and I do not think it is likely.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think that the proprietary rights of the Crown in the right of Canada would be ample enough to give them jurisdiction to make some regulations at least. I would be a little surprised to find that there was any declaration such as that to which the minister alludes, because I do not see how a park could be declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. It seems to me that that would be a very unusual declaration, because the word ' work ' has no such meaning in the British North America Act. But, inasmuch as the government of Canada would have the right, by virtue of its proprietary interest, to exclude any person from coming within the limits of the park, I suppose it might qualify the right to enter the park by means of regulations; in other words, it having the right to exclude altogether, it could give the right of admission subiect to certain regulations, and perhaps


Frank Oliver: that might be sufficient to justify the regulations which the minister has made, although I have not examined the subject with any great care.


Frank Oliver: We have been very careful. We have recognized that our position is not established as one of absolute control, and therefore we have gone carefully, and with due regard to the game protection policy of the province. I am satisfied that we have sufficient jurisdiction to create a good deal of friction if we wanted to. We do not want to, and I think the House may rest assured that the provisions we are asking it to assent to, and the administration of those provisions will guarantee that there will be no friction.


Mr. HERRON.: T would like to inquire of the minister about the Kootenay lakes timber reserve. The minister is aware no doubt how beautiful those lakes are, and there is a great desire on the part of many people to build there. I would like the minister to inform me if the applicants can get permits to build in or about the Kootenay lakes. It is probably a timber reserve although I am not quite sure to what class it belongs.


Frank Oliver: The answer would practically be the same as that I gave to the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche).
I mentioned the Kootenay lakes reserve as being a forest reserve, not a park reserve, but it is of a class in which it would be very desirable to permit a part of it to be used as a park reserve. It is our policy to make such arrangements as are necessary to that end. We may need special legislation, but if we do not we will make provision without further delay. However, these regulations have no application whatever to any other than the Banff park.


John Herron: Under the present regulations can a person obtain by lease or in some other way a site around the Kootenay lakes to erect a building?


Frank Oliver: I think there is some provision whereby building privileges can be secured. In reply to my hon. friend (Mr. J- Haggart) I may say that section 3 of the Rocky Mountains Park Act reads:
Said tract of land is hereby reserved and set apart as a public park and pleasure ground for the benefit, advantage and enjoyment of the people of Canada, subject to the provisions of this Act and of the provisions hereinafter mentioned, and shall be known as the Rocky Mountains park, Canada.
Progress reported.



IRRIGATION ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 186) to amend the Irrigation Act was read a second time and the House went into committee thereon.

On section 1,
Frank Oliver: The matter of drainage is being dealt with by the provincial governments and there are applications which are of a very minor character in respect to which it is unnecessarily burdensome to require plans to be filed in all cases as the existing statute provides. Under this, instead of requiring plans to be filed in all cases they need only be filed when the Minister of the Interior considers the work of sufficient importance to demand them.
On section 2,


Frank Oliver: The Act as it now stands contemplates the reservation by the minister, of land which it is desired to use for reservoir sites, or for the right of way of irrigation canals. We propose to add to that the right to expropriate in case some part of the area desired to be taken as a reservoir site may have passed into private hands. Of course, the holding of one small piece of private property would defeat the purpose of the government in making a general reservoir.


John Graham Haggart: If you own the lands you have the right to reserve them, but the minister is taking power here to expropriate, for the purpose of irrigating a section of the country, land which may be vested in the provincial government. Is the minister quite sure he can do that constitutionally?


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman may be quite correct, but that view is entirely new to me. This parliament has declared that all the rights to all waters in the three prairie provinces shall be vested in the Crown in the right of the Dominion. The right over all waters in the three prairie provinces was vested in the Crown in the right of the Dominion, and the Acts providing for the establishment of the new provinces have preserved that right to the Dominion.


John Graham Haggart: Do the Autonomy Acts reserve to the Dominion all the water rights over both navigable and non-navigable streams?


Frank Oliver: Yes, as I understand the matter. At any rate, I am not presuming to establish the fact either one way or the other. I merely desire to amend the legislation which is on the statute-book, whether it is constitutional or otherwise, and I am saying that when we take the power to reserve, we should, in order to make that power effective, also take the power to expropriate.


Robert Laird Borden: As I understand, what the minister is endeavouring to accomplish is this. There may be a certain tract in one of the western provinces which it would be eminently desirable to reserve
for water storage, for irrigation canals and ditches; but it may have happened that before the importance of that proposal was recognized by the department, some portion of that land may have been alienated and homestead rights upon it may have been granted. This legislation is to permit the government in such cases to acquire that land by expropriation in order that the proposal may be carried out in exactly the same manner as would have been possible except for that alienation.	-


Frank Oliver: That is an absolutely correct statement of our position.


John Graham Haggart: I understand that that is the object of the minister, but I very much doubt the power to carry it out.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PUGSLEY moved that the House go into committee on Bill (No. 103) to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Robert Laird Borden: Will the minister explain the object?


William Pugsley: The two sections of the present Act, which it is proposed to appeal, are sections 4 and 5 of chapter 115 of the Revised Statutes. Section 4 is as follows:
No bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau shall be constructed so as to interfere with navigation, unless the site thereof has been approved of by the Governor in Council, nor unless such bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau is built and maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Governor in Council.
I propose to enlarge the scope of that by including in it the words: ' wharf, dock, pier or other structure of any kind.' Then I propose to leave out the limitation expressed by the words: 'so as to interfere with navigation,' and to provide that none of these structures ' shall be built or placed in or across any navigable water, unless the site thereof has been approved,' &c. The object of the change is to give to the Governor in Council a larger measure of control over navigable waters and over works which may be constructed in, upon or across such waters.


John Graham Haggart: Will that apply to those already built?


William Pugsley: No, only to the future. It is a curious fact that as long ago as 1870, parliament passed an Act relating to the Ottawa river which gave the government absolute control over all works on that river in these words:
The navigation of the River Ottawa, as well by vessels and boats as by rafts and cribs of timber or logs, is hereby declared to be sub-

ject to the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and all canals or other cuttings for facilitating such navigation, and all dams, slides, piers, booms, embankments, and other works of what kind or nature soever in the channel or waters of the said river, or in which the waters of the said river are used, and in whatever province situate, and whether constructed or to be constructed, and whether constructed by the government of Canada or by the government of the late province of Canada, or by the government of Upper or Lower Canada, or by any private party by the consent and authority of any of the said governments, which shall, from time to time, be recognized by the Governor in Council, on the report of the Minister of Public Works, as being or as having been, constructed- for any purpose of public utility, shall be held to be works for the general advantage of Canada, and, with all works of like character, no matter by whom constructed and whether being recognized as being for the general advantage or not, situate in or on the waters of the said river, shall be subject to the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, and shall be under the control and management of the Department of Public Works, and subjeot to the provisions of the Act, intituled, ' An Act respecting the Public Works of Canada/


John Graham Haggart: That -does not apply to wharfs.


William Pugsley: It -says piers.


John Graham Haggart: Those piers are for the purpose of facilitating the passage of timber down the river, and are not to be utilized as wharfs.


William Pugsley: The word pier is often used to mean whaTf. Moreover, this says, 'and other works of what kind or nature soever,' which would surely include wharfs. I quote this only to show how far parliament went with regard to the Ottawa river; but, strange to say, with regard to other navigable waters throughout Canada, the only provision is one applicable to a bridge, a boom, a dam or an aboiteau, there being no reference whatever to wharfs or other structures which might be as objectionable in navigable waters as any one of these four works which the section refers to. Another objection to this section is that it limits the power of the Governor in Council to eases which actually interfere with navigation, and the question would naturally arise as to who shall be the judge as to whether or not a particular work does interfere with navigation. As I mentioned when the Bill was being read a second tinfe, in quite a number of cases the provincial governments have erected bridges across navigable rivers in cases where I think it would he proper that they should come to the department at Ottawa for approval of their plans. But they have contended that these bridges do not inter-Mr. PUGSLEY.
fere with navigation, that is, they take the ground that in some cases, while the river is navigable, it is not navigated, and, therefore, their works cannot be said to interfere with navigation. My attention has been particularly called to the case of a bridge which was built across the South Saskatchewan river by the Alberta government. There is no draw in the bridge. Their action was followed up by telegraph and telephone companies which strung wires across the river. A little later on an enterprising citizen living further up the Saskatchewan river concluded he would build a tug boat. He started down the river with it, and got entangled in the wires and by the bridge, and the result was that his boat was wrecked, and the unfortunate man lost $9,000 or $10,000 worth of property, and apparently has no redress against anybody for the damage he sustained. I think it is in the interest of the countrv generally that, as the Dominion parliament has control of navigation, it should have control of works of whatever nature or kind that may be placed in navigable waters, and that parties proposing to erect bridges, or wharfs, or booms, or anything which may prove an obstruction to navigation, should come to Ottawa and file their plans with the department and get approval thereof. If, in the opinion of the engineers, the work would not unreasonably interfere with' navigation, there is no doubt the approval would be granted. I may mention a case that occurred recently in respect to the harbour of Victoria. The Grand Trunk Pacific were proposing to construct a wharf in connection with their steamship service to the city of Victoria. They fortunately seemed to recognize, what a great many other people and companies recognize, that they ought to come to the Public Works Department, even although the statute is silent on the question of wharfs. They came to the department and their plans were sent out to the resident engineer. He naturally consulted with the .public bodies there, like the harbour association, the board of trade, and the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and the general opinion was that if the wharf were built as the Grand Trunk Pacific proposed, it would seriously interfere with the navigation of the harbour, it would seriously interfere with the handling of the steamships of the Canadian Pacific railway. Consequently the engineer reported against allowing the wharf to be built as proposed, the Grand Trunk Pacific consented to alter the plan, and the Canadian Pacific railway and the hoard of trade consented, and in that way the whole difficulty was overcome. I only mention that case as an instance of the desirability of having the plans of any structure obstructing navigable waters, submit-

ted to the department for approval. Section 5 of the old Act, strange to say, is limited to bridges, it simply says: 'any bridge to which this part applies.' We desire to substitute the following:
Any work to which this part applies, which is built upon a site not approved by the Governor in Council, or which is not built in accordance with plans so approved, or which, having been so built, is not maintained in accordance with such plans, may be removed and destroyed under the authority of the Governor in Council.
Why, in section 4, some four different classes of work should be mentioned, and why, in section 5, only one of these four classes should be mentioned, I am unable to understand.


John Graham Haggart: Does this apply only to works to be built?


William Pugsley: Only to works to be built in future.


Mr. BOYCE.: How does the minister construe the words ' navigable waters '? Does that mean that no obstruction of the class mentioned in section 4 proposed to be amended, shall be built without the authority of the minister or of the Governor in Council? In the case of a reach, or a bay, which leads out to a navigable water, and which is not in itself navigable, would this Act impose upon any one proposing to construct a pier or a bridge for private use, the necessity of applying to the Governor in Council for permission?


William Pugsley: No, it is limited expressly to a navigable water, structures which are proposed to be built upon a navigable water.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The Bill which the hon. gentleman proposes, I fear, may go a good deal further than he really intends. I have drawn his attention already privately to a matter in my own county. Along the shores of Lake Ontario, the waters are constantly washing away the land, and deep erosions have been made in the shore, so much so that in one instance I was informed by a former owner of the land that an apple tree growing 120 feet from the shore 25 years ago, has now entirely disappeared. That means that 120 feet of land on that farm has been washed away in the course of 25 years. In other places, roadways are interfered with, and there is a danger that land will have to be acquired to provide new roadways to supply the place of the travelled road which possibly has been in use from 75 to 100 years. Even in the village of Burlington, where a government property is only a short distance from a deep erosion across the street, there is danger that before many years the government will have to acquire another drill hall, or they will have to do something in the meantime to stop the destruction of the
shore by the waves. Now the plan that is being adopted by the farmers and the municipal council is to throw out groynes or docks, or wharfs, from 75 to 100 feet into the lake, with the idea that the waves will wash the silt and gravel in upon these docks, or wharfs, or groynes, and in that way accumulate or build up more land, instead of constantly washing it away. The hon. gentleman has been in a position to expend government money for the purpose of protecting this shore. So far, he has declined to do anything, and I am afraid that if we wait too long the destruction may-reach very great proportions. The municipal council of the county of Halton. has. already taken the matter up and has built one of these groynes out into the lake, 75 or 100 feet, and I believe it is having very good effect in preventing further washing away, in fact, it is perceptible already that new land is going to form and that the destruction of property will be arrested. Nor is that an uncommon thing. I am informed that farmers along the shore, in order to protect their land, are building little wharfs as they see the need of them. They build a crib and fill it with stones- a very simple matter, but it has the desired effect. Now, it is going to be a very serious problem for these people if they have to run down to Ottawa and get the consent of the Governor in Council before thev are permitted to build a little crib filled with stone for the protection of their own land. The government will not do anything for them, and here the hon. minister passes a Bill to make it as troublesome as possible for them to protect themselves. I think the Bill is a mistake, that the law was well enough before. The broadening of the law as proposed by the hon. minister is only going to cause additional trouble to the people who desire to protect themselves, and whom the government does not seem willing to protect. I think it is a pity that the wording should have been broadened, and I hope the minister will revise the Bill and put the law back just about where it was. I am sure the minister does not wish unnecessarily to injure property or to prevent people from protecting their property. He may have in view wider cases and larger circumstances and may not have thought of these apparently small matters, though matters of very much importance to the men to whom I refer.


William Pugsley: I am sure no difficulty or hardship will arise in the case to which the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) refers. The matter of throwing out groynes to protect the shore is a matter in which no minister would interfere, unless it were found, in some way, to cause an interference with navigation. When this Bill was before the House on a former occasion, the

hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Barker) and I discussed it across the table. The difficulty is to put in an amendment making exceptions. I am sure the matter pan be well left to the good judgment of the engineering department of the government, and to the minister from time to time. There will be no disposition whatever to interfere with works of the character to which the hon. member refers. But it is important that the construction of wharfs should be as much under the control of the Public Works Department as the construction of bridges. The proceeding will be a simple one. In cases in which the work is at all extensive, it ought to be submitted to the department. To such small works as the hon. member refers, there will be no objection on the part of any reasonable minister, or of any officer of common sense


John Graham Haggart: But suppose a party, say, on the St. Lawrence, or on any of the lakes, erect a wharf without coming down to Ottawa for the purpose of having it approved-a wharf for a little island cottage, for which, of course, it would not be worth while to make an application-what control would the party who built it have over it under this Act? He would have no right to erect it, and any person would have the right to tie up to it or even to remove it if necessary. The builder of it might even be liable to indictment at the instance of any person who had a grievance against him. The difficulty is the annoyance to which people might be subject. Of course, the case of building a bridge over the Saskatchewan is a different matter. They had no right to build such a bridge without getting the authority of the Public Works Department. The same would apply to the erection of any work of sufficient importance at the mouth of the St. Lawrence, or at any other of a hundred other places in Canada. But the application of the principle to everything in the shape of a wharf, is objectionable.


William Pugsley: Let me illustrate the point I wish to make by citing a case which came under my own personal observation. Some years ago in the province of New Brunswick, the provincial government erected a bridge across the St. John river, and put a draw in it which, they contended, was sufficient for the purposes of navigation. The premier and attorney general at that time, Mr. Blair, said that, as the bridge did not interefere with navigation, he would not go to the authorities at Ottawa but would build the work according to plans satisfactory to himself and his government. But I say that, in the general interests of the country, the local authorities ought not to control such matters. The Governor in Council should be the judge, and the Department of Public Mr. PUGSLEY.
Works should be the advisers. As to the small wharfs that have been referred to, I am not quite sure what their position is now. The soil under navigable waters, in most cases, belongs to the federal or the provincial government. Therefore, if a man builds a wharf in navigable waters, even in front of his own property, he is trespassing upon somebody, he is doing an act which is unlawful, either against the Dominion government or against the provincial gpvernment. This applies to ninety-nine cases out of a hundred.


John Graham Haggart: Would these wharfs be liable to common usage by the general public, not having the authority of the Crown?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: No more than they are now.


John Graham Haggart: They may be now.


William Pugsley: Yes, they may be, it is difficult to say. Many wharfs have been built in navigable waters illegally. I really do not think there will be any practical inconvenience or injury from this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister is departing from the terms of the statute in force for many years. The statute originally provided that:
No bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau shall be constructed so as to interfere with navigation, unless the site thereof has been approved by the Governor in Council, nor unless such bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau is built and maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Governor in Council.
The minister proposes to substitute a provision that:
No bridge, boom, darn, aboiteau, wharf, . dock, pier, or other structure of any kind, shall be built or placed in or across any navigable water, unless the site thereof has been approved by the Governor in Council, nor unless such bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier or other structure is buiit and maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Governor in Council.
I do not know whether the term ' navigable water ' has been defined in the statutes or not?


William Pugsley: No, it is the first time.


Robert Laird Borden: There -might be some difficulty in giving that word an exact application. We know what the words ' navigable water ' mean in Great Britain, there have been many cases defining the expression there, but on this continent the expression has varied from time to time according to the particular conditions of the locality, and the particular purpose for which it is proposed to use the water. For example a river may be navigable for one purpose, and absolutely unnavigable for another. I do not know whether the ex-

pression ' navigable water ' would have the same meaning in every province in Canada. It is not defined in the statute. I suppose it must be left to the determination of the courts in each province, and I would think some difficulty might arise. Apart from this statute altogether in the case alluded to by the Minister of Public Works there would be no right to build a wharf or any other structure so as to interfere with navigation, and even if the person building that wharf absolutely owned the soil by virtue of a grant from the Crown that would not entitle him to build a wharf upon it. In the harbour at Halifax that very question arose twenty-five years ago in the case of Essen vs. Wood. There was a grant from the Crown in the right of the province to one of the citizens of Halifax of certain lands below high water mark. That citizen extended his wharf so as to cover that land. An adjoining wharf proprietor went with a force of men, pulled up the piles and destroyed the wharf. An action was brought, and it was contended that such person was justified in destroying the wharf, because although the person building the wharf had a title from the Crown to the land in question, that person was not entitled to use the land in such a way as to interfere with the right of navigation which was common to all subjects of His Majesty. An appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada brought a decision that by reason of the fact that the wharf so constructed was an interference with navigation, the person destroying the wharf was justified.^ The ground of that decision was that the Crown in the absence of legislative sanction has no right to authorize any man to interfere with navigation. An Act of narliament is necessary for that purpose. Thus the statute with which the minister is dealing is in one sense an enabling Act and not a restricting Act.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose we can consider all these matters when we get into committee, but I would invite the minister's special attention to his use of that expression * navigable water,' because I am inclined to think some confusion might arise in different provinces from the use of that expression unless it is defined.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
On section 1,
William Pugsley: I would call the attention of the committee, and especially of the leader of the opposition whose remarks on the subject are very valuable, especially when he speaks of this Act being an enabling Act, rather than a restricting Act, to the wording of the Railway Act. The Railway Act speaks particularly of a railway crossing a navigable river, and requires that application shall be made to the Board of Railway Commissioners, as well as to the Minister of Public Works. In that case I do not know that there has been any definition of the words ' navigable water '.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be rather difficult to frame a definition.


William Pugsley: Very. Of course there is a difference between what would be called a floatable stream, and a navigable stream. A floatable stream, down which logs could be floated, would not be considered a navigable water. The courts of New Brunswick have decided that such a floatable stream is a public highway for the floating of logs, but not a navigable water, as it would be construed under this Act. Section 233 of the Railway Act provides :
When the company is desirous of constructing any wharf, bridge, tunnel, pier or other structure or work

These words are about as broad as the words of the Bill I am asking the committee to consider.

in, upon, over, under, through, or across
any navigable water or canal, or upon the beach, bed or lands covered with the waters thereof, the company shall, before the commencement of any such work,-
(a) in the case of navigable water, not a canal, submit to the Minister of Public Works, and in the case of a canal to the minister, for approval by the Governor in Council, a plan and description of the proposed site for such work, and a general plan of the work to be constructed, to the satisfaction of such minister.
Now, in effect I am asking in regard to all navigable waters that practically the same law may be enacted as section 233 of the Railway Act enacts so far as similar works constructed by a railway company are concerned. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) very truly says that this is an enabling Act, rather than a restricting Act; it is enabling the Minister of Public Works, or the Governor in Council to make legal the erection of wharfs and other works in navigable waters. I have a case in point. A person in British Columbia erected a wharf in navigable water, and some question, arose as to the legality of the structure. He applied to my department for approval, but I was obliged to say: No, I cannot approve of it, because you should have come before 'you undertook the construction of the work; the statute is limited to that; I cannot approve of a work already constructed, the Act says in a later section: Approval of the proposed work. The gentleman was very much astonished, and ag-

grieved that he could not get this wharf approved of.


John Graham Haggart: There is no remedy under this Act for him.


William Pugsley: No, I do not intend to change that. That will be found in section 7, which says:
The local authority, company or person proposing to construct any work in navigable waters, for which no sufficient sanction otherwise exists, may deposit the plans thereof and a description of the proposed site with the Minister of Public Works, and a duplicate of each in the office of the registrar of deeds for the district, county or province in which such work is proposed to be constructed, and may apply to the Governor in Council for approval thereof.
You will see it is limited to work to be done in future and, therefore, under this section, I felt that I could not approve of a work already constructed. No doubt the effect of the statute would be that when a wharf was once approved of, it would become legal, whereas, otherwise, it would be illegal.	*


John Graham Haggart: Does the minister think he has no jurisdiction at all on navigable rivers at the present time as to what character of wharf, bridge or anything else may be constructed thereon?


William Pugsley: That is a pretty large question. By the British North America Act the parliament of Canada is given control over navigation. I would think that probably the minister could apply to the Minister of Justice and have an injunction issued to prevent interference with navigation but that might lead to litigation. I think it very desirable to have some defined plan of operation laid down by statute, which persons would be obliged to follow, so that every man, when he was proposing to erect a structure in a navigable water, would know what he had to do, and if he got the approval of the Governor General in Council he could proceed and no individual could afterwards complain that his structure hindered navigation and was therefore illegal.


Robert Laird Borden: I do think that the expression 'in navigable waters' perhaps might work out in the way suggested by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). If you provide that these structures shall not be built or placed in such a way as to interfere with navigation, that is one thing, but if you provide absolutely that they shall not be constructed in navigable waters, that is another thing. They might be constructed in navigable waters in such a way that they could not possibly interfere with navigation. Some of the illustrations given already would serve as examples of that. A Mr. PUGSLEY.
man, for instance, might be protecting his own property. He might be obliged to build a structure for the protection of his property in navigable waters.


William Pugsley: Who should be the
judge of whether it does interfere with navigation or not? Suppose it is not navigable water should not the Governor General in Council be the judge of that?


Robert Laird Borden: The remedy is a very plain one. If any man builds a structure so as to interfere with navigation without statutory authority enabling him to do so, any one coming along, whose right to navigate is so interfered with, can tear it down and destroy it. It is a public nuisance. Therefore, it seems to me there is absolute protection in that regard. But, if a man places a structure for the protection of his own land in such a way as not to interfere with navigation he harms no one, and he is not put to the trouble and expense of seeking from the Minister of Public Works an authority which under the premises is not at all necessary in the public interest.


William Pugsley: What is an interference with navigation? Suppose, as in the case to which the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) referred, a man builds out into a navigable water for 100 feet from his own shore another man comes along with a row boat or a tug boat and says: I want to navigate the water where that pier is-is not that an interference with navigation?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and he would tear it down.


William Pugsley: Is that desirable? Should there not be some authority which should settle these things?


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I understand that the federal government has set up a claim that the Horseshoe Falls at Niagara is a navigable water. Does this Act pretend to set up the claim that every water-fall where a dam can be built, or where a water-power can be developed, comes under the jurisdiction of this government?


William Pugsley: This is limited to navigable waters. I do not know whether the place to which my hon. friend refers is navigable or not. I rather understand that it is not navigable.


John Allister Currie: I think the minister should state in the Bill what the term 'navigable water' means. The hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) claims that the falls on the Nipigon and Pigeon rivers are navigable. They are navigable only for a Peterborough canoe drawing perhaps three inches of water. If that constitutes navigable water

it will give this parliament complete jurisdiction over all such streams in every province of the Dominion. To make it move effective this clause covers all the water-powers that are supposed to be under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The Bill says:
No bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier, or other structure of any kind, shall be built or placed in or across any navigable water, unless the site thereof has been approved by the Governor in Council, nor unless such bridge, boom, dam, aboiteau, wharf, dock, pier or other structure is built and maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Governor in Council.
Not only the actual work but the site of the work must be approved of by this government. That places the site of every power in every province in the hands of the Dominion. I am not prepared to go quite that far, and I would ljj^e the minister, before this Bill passes, to make it clear that there is no intention to interfere with the Tights of the various provinces in their own water-powers. For instance, the province of Ontario has passed an Act whereby every power of 100 horsepower, but I understand it is 100 horsepower-in the province of Ontario, it does not matter who is the owner of the land, or what the navigation of the stream is, or whether that power is developed by a company or any individual, is subject to the right of the province, in which the franchise is vested and which charges 50 cents per horse-power per annum. I would like to be satisfied that the Bill does not take away or interfere with the rights of any of the provinces in their own water-powers, their rights in their water-powers being as well established as their rights in their lands, forests or minerals.


William Pugsley: This Bill is intended only to interfere with the navigable waters.


John Allister Currie: What constitutes a navigable water?


William Pugsley: I think Mat there is no question but what the term ' navigable water ' would mean a water which could be navigated by fair-sized boats-such boats as would carry traffic, freight and passengers. A stream which would float a canoe or a log might be floatable, but it would not be navigable. I would have no objection, if any hon. gentleman thinks he can give a definition of navigable waters which would he better than the definition which the court has made, to our defining what ' navigable water ' means. I do not know that it has been defined by statute in Canada, although the courts have defined it as a body of water which can be navigated by sailing vessels or steam boats. I think that a stream through which a rowboat could pass should not be regarded as a navigable river within the meaning of a statute of this character.


Mr. BARNARD.: Does subsection (b) of section 13 of chapter 115 throw a little light on this question of what is or what is not a navigable stream in its definition of the word 'vessel'? For the purpose of the Act, the word ' vessel ' is defined as being ' any description of ship, boat or craft of any kind whether propelled by steam or otherwise.'


William Pugsley: That is contained in the part of the chapter relating to the Marine Department


George Henry Barnard: Precisely. But when they define waters which are navigable, as the waters mentioned in that Act, does not the minister think that a court would seize on that subsection for a correct interpretation of the word ' navigable '?


William Pugsley: I would hardly think so.


Mr. ARTHURS.: There should be some definite description of what navigable waters mean before this clause is passed. There is an Ontario Act providing that in the unorganized districts of the province there shall be 66 feet reserved on each side of any navigable water, and it has been decided that any water that floats a canoe is navigable water under that definition.


William Pugsley: Has that been decided by the courts in Ontario?


John Allister Currie: My hon. friend (Mr. Arthurs) refers to the Rivers and Streams Bill. It would be well to put in an interpretation clause stating what under this Act would be construed as navigable water. For instance, as far as the purposes of the Dominion are concerned, I should consider that if a stream entered into provincial rivers or international waters any part of that river from its mouth would be navigable as far un as navigation could be had without obstacle. But the ramifications of this Act are so extensive that it would cover that stream to its source. We have had it held in this House by a gentleman who is very much interested in these power Bills that any stream at all which empties into international or interprovincial waters is a navigable stream to its source for the purposes of this Act, and that the Dominion has complete control over any river or stream tributary to any of the great lakes or the River St. Lawrence, We would save a great deal of trouble in the future if we define in this Act what a navigable river is. I have no doubt the intention is to prevent an obstruction being put in a navigable river, such for example, as the Kaministiquia at Fort William, without the consent of the government. I should think that a river, or that part of it affected, should be taken over by procla-

mation before it could be considered as under the jurisdiction of the Dominion. We all know there has been a decision of the courts in the question ol the ownership of streams in the province of Ontario under the old River and Streams Bill.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend send me a memo as to where I can find that case?


John Allister Currie: It is a famous case which was fought through to the Privy Council by Sir Oliver Mowat, and I think it had reference to a large branch of the Ottawa river.


William Stevens Fielding: It is the Caldwell and Maclaren case.


William Pugsley: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that it had neen decided by the courts that a navigable river was a river along which any kind of a vessel, even a row boat or a canoe could be propelled. I do not see how that question could arise in the Caldwell-McLaren case.


James Arthurs: It was I who made the statement that the Ontario government had raised such a contention, and I said that there was an Ontario Act under which one chain perpendicular width was reserved along all navigable streams. The provincial government has interpreted this to mean any streams which are at all navigable.


William Pugsley: I understood the hon gentleman to say that it has been so interpreted by the courts.


James Arthurs: No, but the Ontario government issues their patents with this reservation regarding all these small streams.


William Pugsley: I can assure the committee that my whole desire is to limit this to what are in reality navigable waters, and hon. gentlemen will see how desirable it is that there should be federal control ever the structures which are to be built therein. I am not prepared to say whether it would be possible to define navigable waters for the purposes of this Act, but I would be glad to receive any suggestions from any hon. gentleman as to a proper definition.


John Allister Currie: The Muskoka lakes empty into the Georgian bay by the Muskoka or Moon river. These lakes are virtually in two sections, and there is a lock built between Rosseau and Muskoka lakes with a fall of 4 or 5 feet, and that lock is maintained by the province. A line of steamers plies up and down the lakes. At the lower end of the lake there is a dam maintained by the Ontario government so as to keep the lakes at a special level, and Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
the total length of navigation on these lakes must be 80 or 90 miles. Under this Bill the control over these waters would apparently be taken over by the Dominion. The same is true of the Maganatawan; there are 15 or 20 miles of navigation from the mouth, then rapids for 25 miles, then another long stretch of navigation on that river. The same conditions are to be found on the Nipigon and on the Columbia and Kootenay rivers in the west. The minister should endeavour to find some definition which would end this continual friction with the provinces, and which would clearly distinguish the rights of the Dominion and of the provinces in these navigable waters. The time of parliament has been wasted a great deal with these continuous disputes, and they are not in the interest of the provinces or to the credit of the Dominion. I should hope that no one in this parliament would want to infringe on the rights of the provinces.


William Pugsley: This simply deals with the control of navigation and does not touch the rights of any province.


James Arthurs: In the riding I represent the tourists have wharfs almost at every island on these lakes, and under this Bill these gentlemen would have to send down a plan or specification of each small wharf to the government. I do not think that is the intention of the minister, and I think some provision should be put in the Bill which would eliminate that difficulty. It seems to me to be manifestly unfair.


Mr. G. V. WHITE (North Renfrew).: 
William Pugsley: Yes, if this Act had been enforced, it would in the ordinary course of events have prevented the very difficulty to which my hon. friend has referred. The petition which he has read shows the necessity of having some oversight- over these navigable waters, so that persons, before erecting any structure, would know that it was their duty under the law to come to the Minister of Public Works and submit plans for the structure, so that they could be inquired into by the engineers, and if they showed no interference with navigation, they would be approved of. The difficulty to which my hon. friend refers would, I think, be obviated if this Act were in force. [DOT]


Gerald Verner White: I may inform the hon. minister that most of the present property owners have bought their lands within the last ten or twelve years, and these lumbering operations have been going on for a good many years. I would be glad if this grievance could be remedied in some way. All that these petitioners ask is that a gap be made in the booms whereby they could have ingress and egress to and from their cottages along the shore.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will be good enough to write me a letter on the 198
subject, I will give directions to have it looked into.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that this Bill would remedy the grievance, if ' navigable waters ' is to have the definition the minister gave a little while ago.


Gerald Verner White: These booms are on the Ottawa river, which is navigable. The logs come down the Petawawa river, and the cottages are right at the mouth of that river on the Ottawa river.


William Pugsley: The difficulty in the past has been that there has not been enough attention paid to the right of the public to navigation. Men have erected booms, bridges, wharfs and piers, in many cases without the slightest regard to the public interest. In the very case my hon. friend from North Renfrew has referred to, lumbermen built booms and dams in the river knowing that the riparian owners had a right to navigation. We find the same thing all over the country. There is nothing in this country that we ought to guard more sacredly, in the interests of future generations, than the freedom of navigation, and parliament ought not to be afraid to entrust the matter to the engineering staff of the department and the Governor in Council, which of course would only act reasonably upon the reports the engineers would make.


John Allister Currie: So far as I am concerned, with my knowledge of the facts, I cannot consent to this Act passing in its present form without a protest. The hon. minister cannot show the House a single complaint or petition to his department from any person in any province of the Dominion asking him to take the absolute control of all navigable waters. The old Act read that as long as the bridge, boom, dam, pier or other structure did not interfere with navigation, it could be built. The minister goes far afield and provides that nothing can be built on any navigable water without the approval of the Governor in Council. I will warrant that there are two thousand small wharfs on the Muskoka lakes, built by private individuals, costing anywhere from $25 to $1,000. The same thing exists all over the country. Arc these people to be compelled to come and get the consent of the Public Works Department and to file plans made by an expensive engineer and costing more than they are worth, although very often these structures are miles away from any interference with navigation? The very stream the hon. member for North Renfrew speaks of is under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. There are streams where the province has given boom companies the rights to build booms and sluices and carry on their works. There are millions of dollars invested in these boom companies in the province of Ontario, as I have no doubt



there are in Quebec and other provinces. The hon. minister proposes to lord it over all these investments and to the men who have built extensive booms in accordance with the regulations laid down by the province. He steps up with a great club and says, we have taken these under our control and protection. The great awakening for the protection of the navigable waters of the country has taken place first in the provinces, and the work cannot be done as successfully at Ottawa as it can nearer! home. A man in British Columbia would have to come to Ottawa to get the permission of the Department of Public Works to build a $35 dock.
Therefore I think the minister should modify it, and leave the clause just as. it was before. If the minister can show this House any documentary proof of need, or any petition asking him to pass this Act, then I would be willing to stand aside. But there has been no public petition presented for it in the House. The hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. White) has a petition, but he will find that the Ontario law covers his case. They can compel any company that is booming logs to leave a gap for vessels. All that is required is that somebody should call the attention of the government to any obstruction that may exist, but they have gone to the wrong quarter. I think the minister in that Bill is endeavouring to take away the rights of the provinces. I do not hesitate to say that to my mind it is one of the most vicious attacks on provincial rights that has been made in any Bill that has been brought before this House for a long time. Whilst he may say that he can do this, that, or the other thing, the fact remains that those who are looking for those powers and approvals can already go to the provinces, and now he wants to give them power to come here, and thus keep this House in a turmoil for weeks. I think for the sake of peace it would be in the interest of the public that the old clause should remain as it is, and that before any such drastic change as this is made, the provinces should be notified that it is the intention of the federal government to take charge of all these dams, booms and sluiceways. The provinces have officers of their own appointed to look after these things, and they are paid for it, and they are doing their work satisfactorily. The minister intends to have a double jurisdiction. I think the Act is highly objectionable.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another thing I would like to bring to the attention of the minister. In the province of Nova Scotia, for example, all along the shores of the coves, and small harbours, fishermen living on these shores have in many cases a little wharf or jetty; and the lobster factories along the coast usually have some-Mr. .1. A. CURRIE.
thing of the same kind to enable the lobster fishermen to bring in their catch, and land it at the factory. It seems to me that under the provisions of this statute every one of those fishermen would be required to file plans for every little wharf or jetty that he builds in connection with his occupation. No doubt the minister does not intend anything of the kind, but I think that will be the effect of it. As has already been suggested, it seems to me that the mischief he seeks to prevent could be avoided by using the expression which is to be found in the former statute, and for the reason very forcibly pointed out by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie). If, for example, he would add after the words ' navigable water,' the words which are found in the present statute, ' so as to interfere with navigation,' would not that be quite sufficient to prevent the mischief which is sought to be prevented? I think it would. I think it would be dangerous to depart from the expression which has been found fairly sufficient to safeguard the public interest in the past.
IMr. PUGSLEY. The only object is to make the law in regard to all navigable waters the same as it has been for nearly forty years with regard to the Ottawa river. There has never been any serious difficulty I ever heard of on the Ottawa river as to the law being oppressive upon riparian owners. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) rather speaks as if this Bill is proposing to invade provincial rights, because we propose to take more control over navigation. Well, it is not this parliament that is now proposing to do that, because the British North America Act has already given to this parliament control over navigation.


John Allister Currie: I said navigable waters, not navigation.


William Pugsley: Navigation usually takes place in navigable waters.


John Allister Currie: There may be no navigation in navigable waters.


William Pugsley: Wherever a water is capable of navigation, I think it is our duty to preserve the right of navigation upon it for the people of the country, for the benefit of transportation interests.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the point is that a navigable water should be capable of being used by the owner in such a way as would not interfere with navigation.


William Pugsley: Then the question is what authority should judge as to whether it interferes with navigation or not. The hon. member for Simcoe says that the provincial authorities in Ontariojiave given permission for the erection of booms, and

other structures in navigable waters. Well, they talk about encroaching on provincial rights, I say that if they have done that they have encroached in the most flagrant manner upon the rights of the Dominion parliament, because this parliament is the only authority that can give a right to erect structures on navigable waters, that power is absolutely, by the British North America Act, vested in this parliament. Now I desire, as I am sure hon. gentlemen, opposite desire, that the Bill should be made as workable as possible. I am dis-[DOT]posed to consider the suggestion which the' leader of the opposition has made. I do not know whether the Bill will fairly accomplish the desire which I have to preserve navigation, by putting in the clause he suggested, but I will be glad to consider it. I do not think this is a matter which could be determined off-hand; therefore I would move that the committee report _ progress, and the matter can be reconsidered before we resume consideration of the Bill in committee.
Mr. J- A- CURRIE. The hon. minister need not go away with the impression that I was endeavouring unduly to oppose, this Bill. I wish to point out the difference between this^ Act and the old Act. Under the old Act, if any one put an obstruction in a navigable water that interfered with navigation, a complaint could be made to this government, and the parties could be compelled to remove the obstruction. I think that is only fair and just, and that is a right given to this parliament under the British North America Act. But to go wider afield, and to say that nothing can be placed in a navigable water without getting permission from this parliament, is quite another thing. Very often the ownership of the land under that water is vested in individuals, individuals have riparian rights, and the right of the owners of the lots extends out into the water; and to say that they cannot put a small dock in there although it may be twenty miles away from navigation, to say that a small fisherman in New Brunswick must come here, and pay $40 or $50, and deposit plans before he can put a twenty foot dock on piles at which to land his boat, or that the owner of a summer cottage in Muskoka who wants to put a little wharf on the edge of the lake where he can embark in his motor boat, must come down here and file plans, and the same all along the St. Lawrence river and every other inland water,-why the hon. gentleman would have to have a staff of 400 or 500 men to look after all these matters. For that reason I say the clause is absurd. The only right that is given to this parliament under the British North America Act is the right to prevent any interference with navigation, but 198i
that does not mean that this parliament has the right to take control of all rivers streams, and lakes in the country, as this Bill proposes to give them.


Gerald Verner White: I presume that this Bill would cover government docks which, in their present position, are somewhat of a menace to navigation. I have in mind particularly the dock at Petawawa. This case I have brought to the attention of the House on several occasions. The minister will remember that I wrote him last fall with reference to this dock, stating that the^ passenger steamer on the Ottawa river, plying between Pembroke and a point forty-five miles west, was almost stranded on a sand-bar quite near the dock. It seems that the dock has not been built in the proper place or that, in any case, the river should have been dredged at the dock. I have here a letter in reply to the one which I wrote to the minister:
Department of Public Works,
Ottawa, November 2, 1909. Gerald V. White, Esq., M.P.,
Pembroke, Ontario.
Sir,-With reference to your letter of the orct September last, re dredging required at Petawawa wharf, I beg to state that an engineer of the department has been sent to Petawawa, and he held the matter in abeyance until he could make a survey which, he reports, cannot be done for some time.
From discussions which our engineer had with Captains Murphy and Tessier, masters of the passenger steamer ' Victoria/ the local slide master and personal inspection, that officer states that the sand-bar below the dook will require scraping next year at low water, the water this year being too high for scraper work. There is no dredge at present on these waters to attend to the dredging required.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, NAPOLEON TESSIER,
Secretary.
Now, I think this is an urgent matter. On several occasions, the steamer 'Victoria' has been stranded on this sand-bar, endangering the life of passengers on board. It seems to me, therefore, a matter of this kind should receive the attention of the department. I do not see what reason there will be to wait until some time next August, when the water is low, to attend to the matter, for this steamer starts running as soon as navigation opens, and runs during the whole season.
Mr. PUG8LEY. How far is the Petawawa wharf from Ottawa?


Gerald Verner White: It is about ten miles above Pembroke, which would make it about 110 or 115 miles from Ottawa.


William Pugsley: I suppose that we are in the same position this year as we were last year in regard to a dredge in that locality. I will make inquiries.


Gerald Verner White: I would like to have something done, for this is certainly a very dangerous spot.


Mr. THOBURN.: I am very much interested in this Bill from the fact that, during the last session of the Ontario parliament, a company of which I am a member, applied to that parliament for authority to build some dams on the Mississippi river for the purpose of conserving the water. In years gone by,^ the lumbermen had the privilege of erecting dams at the mouth of certain lakes for this purpose. These dams have all disappeared, but the manufacturers in the different towns affected have formed a company for the purpose of building dams where the old wooden dams used to be. It is the intention of the new company to build cement dams. We had a Bill passed through the Ontario legislature at its last session to give us the power to build these dams. The question is, if the Bill now before us passes, how will it affect this company? As to this being a navigable stream, that is the question I would like to have defined. There are on certain stretches of the river, small steamers, but I do not know that they go as far as where we propose to build dams. And there, may be such vessels as gasoline launches or boats of that description plying on these waters. But, if we go to the expense of building these dams, and the question arises whether this is or is not navigable water, it may involve a heavy loss. This we would like to know before we go to the enormous expense involved in these works.


Mr. MACDONELL.: What is involved in the power proposed to be given under this Bill to ' remove or destroy all structures ' anywhere on navigable "waters? Is it the idea or intention, for the future, to prevent the erection of any dam, wharf or pier, on navigable waters of any kind? As the minister" probably is well aware, a great number of water lots largely throughout the province of Ontario, have been granted to private parties during the last fifty or one hundred years, so that practically the greater part of the foreshores of our lakes have been thus granted. For instance, in Toronto water lots were granted by the Crown many years ago, extending 600 feet out into the water. These lots are now' owned by private persons. In many cases the owners have built wharfs, boat-houses and other structures out toward the 600-foot limit-this limit, in many cases, extending far out into navigable waters. These lots have always been regarded oy the owners as their private property, just as much so as a piece of- land in the city. The whole water-front, of Toronto is built on water-lots originally granted by the Crown. They are filling in water-lots to-Mr. PUGSLEY.
day, extending the harbour out into the bay, and are building piers on what is supposed to be private property, believing that they have as much right to do so as a man would have to build a house on a city lot. The land is covered by water, but the owners have the exclusive right from the Crown and have so treated it at all times. As I read the Bill it would certainly empower the government-if the Bill is intra vires-[DOT] to remove any or all of these erections on these lots and to prevent in the future the erection of anything upon these water-lots on which there is navigable water. The whole measure is a very important one, a very serious one, and a very far reaching one, and I would ask if it is the intention of the government deliberately to extend the scope of the Act as far as I have indicated.


William Pugsley: The only intention of the Act, as is apparent on its face, is to give to the Department of Public Works and the Governor in Council a control over the erection of structures in navigable waters. My hon. friend speaks of there being hundreds of wharfs built out into the navigable waters in localities with which he is familiar, and he asks if it is the intention of this Bill to have these removed. I say, no. This Bill will not 'be retrospective in its operation, but will only deal with the future, and it is important that persons who propose erecting structures in navigable waters shall come to the department for approval. My hon. friend knows, as a lawyer, that if any man, whether he come in a small boat or a tug boat along the water and strikes one of these wharfs and finds his progress impeded, he can go to a court and compel the removal of that wharf as being an obstruction to navigation, because it is illegal. A man may own the soil under the water, but he has no right to build out a structure into the water which in any way interferes with the right of every one of His Majesty's subjects to go wherever he likes in a rowboat, a motor boat or a steamboat, and any wharf built without legal authority in a navigable water is in that sense a hindrance to navigation and therefore illegal.
This Act, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L Borden) has said, is an enabling Act, and it enables the Governor in Council to approve of these structures. The only effect it has, and it is a very important effect as far as the public interest is concerned, is to keep a control over the structures, to regulate their building and to determine where they shall be placed. We cannot protect the interest of navigation and provide for the future interests of the people in that regard unless we have some control over the places where these works shall be constructed and over the manner in which they shall be constructed. That is the sole object of the Bill, and it

does seem to me there can be no objection to it. We do not desire to encroach on provincial rights or to interfere with water-powers, but only to secure the right to discharge the duty which under the British North America Act is- imposed on this government and which this government ought, in the interest of the public, to discharge as well as it can. My object in suggesting that progress should be reported was that I should give careful consideration to the suggestion of the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) as to making some amendment which would prevent the possibility-although I do not think it is a possibilitj which ought to be seriously considered- of the Act in any instance working with any degree of harshness. I would be glad to consider the suggestion, and if it is possible t-o make an amendment which would meet my hon. friend's view without impairing the efficiency of the Act and preventing it attaining the object in view, I would be glad to suggest to the committee that the amendment should be made.


James Arthurs: Section 7 of the existing Act reads:
Such local authority, company or person shall give one month's notice of the said deposit of plans and application by advertisement in the ' Canada Gazette,' and in two newspapers published in or near the locality where such work is to be constructed.
This would work very harshly as regards summer tourists and the erection of small wharfs.


William Pugsley: That section might be amended to provide that no advertisement need be published unless the minister should think it in the public interest. 1 would be glad to consider any suggested amendment of that kind.	-


Angus Claude Macdonell: The minister is right and wrong in part. 1 am not quarrelling with his Bill, I think it is highly desirable that people should not be allowed to impede navigation as they are now doing by erecting structures along lake and river fronts. It is quite true, as he points out, that in many cases grants from the Crown of these water lots are subject to the rights of navigation through the waters upon these lands, and in so far as those grants are . concerned, legislation of this nature would be applicable. It should properly apply to grants originally made in which the rights of navigation, were preserved and protected. In those cases, it would be quite right that the government should wish to regulate navigation, and the grant of land from the Crown being subject to that right, to pass an Act providing some machinery for enforcing that right. But, on the other hand, as the minister will recall, a large amount of our water front, in cities particularly, has been granted without rights of navigation, and in many cases
for acres or even miles, the foreshore and navigable water has been filled in to form solid docks and piers, where no right of navigation was reserved. When the Bill comes to be considered in detail1, it might be well to consider those cases, so that a proper distinction might be made between the supervision over cases in which the rights of navigation were reserved and cases where the grants were made not subject to that provision.


William Pugsley: That is worth considering.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company,	Limited.-Mr. Pardee.
On section 1, incorporation.
Mr. HUGHES.: Since this Bill was last before the House a good deal of interest-has been manifested in it, and a good deal of research has been indulged in by members, I presume, on both sides of the House. Owing to the very Conflicting nature of this Bill in connection with the St. Lawrence Power Company's Bill passed in 1901, I may say that it is the wish of of a great many hon. members on this side of the House that a little further time should be had to look into- the legal bearing of one Bill upon the oth^r so that the whole aspect of the case may be placed in view. I had hoped that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) would have been here, but in the absence of that hon. gentleman I think I voice the wishes of hon. gentlemen on this side of the House in asking that this Bill should stand over until next Monday. I think that possibly there will be time saved.


Mr. PARDEE.: I can see no object in the Bill standing. The primary objection to the Bill when it was under consideration before was that there might be some question that it would lead uo to the damming of the St. Lawrence. Granted even that the Bill at that time said so, which it never did, the amendment which has been introduced would absolutely prohibit anything of the kind whatever, so that the whole question of any danger along these lines is absolutely removed from the Bill by the amendment. I cannot see where anything would be gained by allowing it
I

to stand. There is nothing more that can be known of the Bill. In its present form it is simply a transmission line company, and it has absolutely no relation to the Bill of 1901 whatever, and even if it had it is absolutely restricted by the amendment proposed.


Samuel Hughes: Whether the two Bills are not intimately associated is a question that a great many of the best legal minds in the country are in doubt upon; in fact, the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) frankly admitted when the matter was up before that the two Bills were associated together one being the. complement of the other. In considering the question of the amendment which is proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) further doubts have arisen as to the position that the company would then be in with relation to the damming of the St. Lawrence and with relation to the whole Bill.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Has the hon. gentleman read the amendment?


Samuel Hughes: Yes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does he take any such meaning as that out of it? Does not the amendment absolutely preclude any such conclusion being come to?


Samuel Hughes: I think not.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The amendment is as follows:
Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to constitute an approval by parliament of any future development of water-power by erecting a dam in or across the St. Lawrence river under the Act 1 Edward VII., chapter 3, intituled: 'An Act to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company,' or otherwise. Nor shall the company hereby incorporated be authorized to transmit power generated by the St. Lawrence Power Company other than the power generated by and in connection with the works already constructed by the said St. Lawrence Power Company.
Nothing could be plainer in limiting the rights granted by this Bill than the language set forth in the amendment.


Richard Blain: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government has had any correspondence with the Ontario government with respect to the further discussion of this Bill?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand my hon. friend's question to be whether the government has had any correspondence with the Ontario government. As far as I know, none whatever. I do not understand at this stage of the Bill what can be the object of my hon. friend's asking that it should be postponed. There has been a good deal of misapprehension regarding this Bill. I do not know how it has arisen.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: 
Samuel Hughes: This is the first time we have had a frank admission from any member of the government that the Bill of 1901 was actually a Bill to dam the St. Lawrence river. That throws new light on the matter to-night. That was denied the other evening by those who were supporting the Bill, but this amendment frankly admits that the Bill of 1901 gave authority to dam the St. Lawrence.


Wilfrid Laurier: Part of it, certainly.


Samuel Hughes: The Canadian part of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Part of it.


Samuel Hughes: The First Minister frankly admits that to-night and throws new light on the subject.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I read that Act the power is given to dam the St. Lawrence for the purpose of generating energy, and whether it was wise or unwise to give that power, no action has been taken upon it. When we were asked to agree to plans for damming the St. Lawrence, the matter was referred to the Waterways Commission which has still the subject in hand. For my part I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes); I do not want to see the St. Lawrence dammed, and that is why, to meet the objection raised by some members on both sides of the House, the present amendment has been introduced which makes it clear that nothing under the present Bili can be done or shall be done so as to enhance or favour or forward what was done by the Act of 1901. And so, if this Bill is passed no injury can accrue to those who want to have the St. Lawrence remain as it is.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Did I understand the Prime Minister tq say that this company erected a dam under the Act of 1901?
Sir W'lLFRID LAURIER. I understand they did some work.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Railways will bear witness to the fact that they never built any dam at all. The government built and paid for a dam from the mainland to Sheiks island.


Wilfrid Laurier: That was long before the Bill of 1901.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. M. P. Davis had the contract from the government for building that dam.


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no question about it at all; I know the facts very well. That is really part of the canal system, and it is exactly the same as if a person leased power from the government on the Lachine canal or the Cornwall canal. Of course,

Mr. Davis had the advantage, when he was building the dam, of knowing that the power would be there, and so to-day he is paying a rental to the government, he having built his wheel pits within the government dam. But, the very fact that the Minister of Public Works started the other night that this Bill is really part of the proposal to dam the St. Lawrence-


William Pugsley: The Minister of Public Works did not say that.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Public Works stated that this Bill was really subsidiary to the other.


William Pugsley: No such thing. I must correct my hon. friend. I made no such statement to this committee. I have been greatly misrepresented outside the House, and now my hon. friend is misrepresenting me inside the House. On the contrary, I stated that this Bill in my judgment had nothing to do with the question of damming the St. Lawrence. As to that, my mind was open; I had not formed a judgment one way or the other.


Robert Laird Borden: If my recollection is correct, the minister said that he had no doubt that this company proposed to get its power from the St. Lawrence Power Company.


William Pugsley: If it should be developed.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that there was any qualifying phrase of that kind


William Pugsley: I said that if that power were developed I suspected that this company would get its power there, but at the same time I had no knowledge on the subject.


John Dowsley Reid: At all events, my impression from what the minister said was that this Bill was to be considered in conjunction with the Bill that should come at a later date, so far as the damming of the St. Lawrence was concerned.


William Pugsley: I made no such statement.


Mr.  J. D.@: REID We have 'Hansard' -here.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I must point out that when an hon. member denies having made any statement, his denial must be accepted irrespective of any other reference.


John Dowsley Reid: There is another thing I want to say to the Prime Minister. When this Bill was before the Private Bills Committee, we urged that this St. Lawrence Power Company's Bill be amended in clause 10. The claim was that the St. Lawrence Mr. J. D. REID.
Power Company could only go to a place called Hoople's creek, ten or twelve miles above Cornwall, for their power. If they had amended clause 10, there would not have been any objection to extend the scope of the St. Lawrence Power Company westward to Brockville or eastward to the Lachine canal. When the people interested in this Bill went to Prescott and Brockville they did not hesitate to say that this Bill had to go through, because the damming of the St. Lawrence was part and parcel of the whole affair, as they had not the power at Cornwall, all the power they had was sold, and they could not possibly supply the power from the St. Lawrence Power Company. But when they came back here they tell a different story. They say they have plenty of power at the St. Lawrence Power Company, and no doubt they have. The answer I gave to them at Prescott was that there was plenty of power there, and if the people of Brockville and Prescott would subscribe for plenty of power it would pay them to extend their transmission line to those places. If they refuse to give the people the advantage of a cheap power, we could ask the government to cancel the contract which they have for lighting the canal, amounting to $52,000 or something like that for 89 years, and there is no doubt that they would run their transmission line to Prescott and Brockville rather than have that contract cancelled. They would have no trouble in running their transmission line to Brockville or even to Kingston, as they say they are anxious to do. Mr. Beach, who has a water-power at Iroquois, has put in a new plant and is ready to serve the public. It is true, he has only put in machinery for 500 horsepower, but he has 2,000 horse-power that he is anxious to sell at Prescott and Brockville if it would pay to run a transmission line. In coming from Hoople's creek to Prescott, I understand that this St. Lawrence Power Company are going to buy the right of way for a width of 30 or 40 feet along the Grand Trunk railway. If they purchase that they will have no trouble in running their transmission line, and they do not need to have an extension of their charter for that purpose. Of course, if they were running on the public road, they would require to get a by-law from the municipality. Mr. Beach had no trouble in getting a by-law passed for that purpose. Down there the whole story was the damming of the St. Lawrence. Now they turn round and say that they are going to supply power from the St. Lawrence Power Company. That company, in the first place, would not agree at what price they would supply the power. They are supplying it to Cornwall for $12.50, and they are charging the government $63. There is no trouble about their getting to Prescott and

Brockville if they want to do that. So far *a:	Montreal is concerned, I think the
Prime Minister will admit that it is pretty well supplied with power. From the Beau-harnois canal there will be 75,000 horsepower, I have heard some engineers state that at the very least there will be 50,000 horse-power soon going from there to Montreal. Then, there is plenty of power from the Lachine canal, Shawenegan and Cedar rapids. In regard to this scheme for damming the St. Lawrence, let the Prime Minister just look at the situation. The proposed dam is to be right where the government territory commences to run eastward on both sides of the river. This government gave permission a few years ago to this same crowd, who are practically the Standard oil people, to dig a canal from the St. Lawrence to empty into the Grass river on the American side. The same people own the Massena power plant on the other side of the river, but they are rnly using a small portion of that power.


Samuel Hughes: They have developed 35,000 horse-power now.


John Dowsley Reid: That canal empties into the Grass river, which empties again into the St. Lawrence. If this dam goes across the Long Sault, and they simply place a dam at the end of Grass river where there is thirty or forty feet of a rise, it is going to send the water down through the state, and they will have not only a water course, but they will have power-all the way down that state. From what people tell me it is worth an immense amount, and I am told that a canal system can be run from that point to Lake Champlain. If that is the case the Prime Minister will see that grain can be brought to that point, and carried down that way to Lake Champlain. Now the only reason they can urge for pushing this Bill through this session would be to get a supply of power for Prescott and Brockville. I am satisfied from what I have heard from good lawyers that they will have no trouble to buy the right of way, and carry that line up to Prescott and Brockville. If they can do that, I do not see any great rush for this Bill. Let it be held over, and let the government go into the matter, and bring it up at a future session.


George Perry Graham: If this Bill had anything to do with damming the St. Lawrence river I would hesitate very much before I would support it. Unlike some hon. gentlemen, I speak of the situation as having lived along it most of my life. It is not only on the map that I know it, but I have walked over the ground time and again. I am not going to discuss the question of damming the St. Lawrence river. That is a pretty big problem, and we will discuss
it at the proper time, if the time ever comes. But this Bill has nothing to do directly or indirectly with damming the St. Lawrence river, and cannot be construed as having any such purpose after the amendment proposed by the promoter of this Bill, and a discussion along those lines is calculated to lead us away from the purpose of the Bill.


Richard Blain: May I ask the minister if the Bill had anything to do with damming the St. Lawrence before the amendment was introduced by the mover of the Bill?


George Perry Graham: I never understood that it had. I say frankly that I appeared before the Private Bills Committee, not as a member of the government, but as a member for the constituency affected, and very seriously affected, and all I suggested to the committee was that they give us a Bill for the incorporation of a transmission line, and nothing else. That is all I ever favoured, that is all I favour now, and that is all I believe there is in this Bill. It is all very well for hon. gentlemen who . are going to be supplied with cheap power in their own locality, to withhold sympathy from our attempt to get the power which we have not now.


Samuel Hughes: Did the town of Brockville try to get this power, or was it presented to them?


George Perry Graham: For five .years the Brockville people have been discussing with Mr. Beach, and endeavouring to get together on terms to form a company to transmit power from Iroquois. It is with the sole desire to get power into a part of the country that has not any power, that I want this Bill put through, and any hon. gentleman in the House would do the same thing if lie were true to his own constituents. Now as to the damage to be done, nobody need tell me anything about damage to lie done if the St. Lawrence river is to be dammed. I have lived there, and know all about it, I know where the ice jams occur, and what is the result. But that has nothing to do with this Bill. This Bill has been shorn of everything that can lend suspicion that it is a back door attempt to dam the St. Lawrence river.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Would the minister tell us why these plans were all prepared in connection with a company?


George Perry Graham: Yes, certainly. These plans were prepared because a company has been trying to get permission to dam the St. Ilawrence for some years, and these are their propositions. They wanted to get the power, but the government has not given them the power. The Prime Minister stated a year ago that nothing 1 would be done without taking parliament
COMMON .a
into the full- confidence of the government. But I come back to this point. In so far as the town of Brockville is concerned, they have made many attempts to get power, and no serious effort has been made by any person outside Brockville to give us that power. True, some letters have been written intimating that such an attempt has been made, but I say that no serious attempt was ever made, and we are as far from getting power to-day as we ever were. That makes a very difficult situation for a town the size of Brockville. I may say that what is now one of the largest industries in the Dominion of Canada had its nucleus in the town of Brockville, a manufactory of agricultural implements. The stock of that company was purchased from local men, the local men understanding that the company was to be established in Brockville and would enlarge its business. But the question of power immediately came up and as we did not have the power we lost the industry, although we offered, I think, an unreasonable proposition in the way of a site and in the way of bonuses. The hon, member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) has pointed out the ground on which I wanted this Bill put through.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did they ever apply to the Hydro-Electric Commission to get the power?


George Perry Graham: They did, they asked for bread and they got a stone, absolutely. Wliat I said a few moments ago, I mean emphatically, that no serious effort was made to give them any power from outside sources, and any person that makes any other statement says what is absolutely untrue, because I know all about it. I think there is some surplus power with a company now at Cornwall, the St. Lawrence Power Company. It must be remembered that this power is leased to them by the Dominion government in the manner outlined by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid). I am of the opinion that they have surplus power that they can give to somebody. There is a power, or the nucleus of a power, generated opposite Mor-risburg, in the village of Waddington, a power I know very well, in what is known as the Little river, nearly opposite Mor-risburg, or a mile further west. The situation is something like that at the Sault. There is the main channel of the St. Lawrence river on the north, there is Ogden's Island, and to the south of that is the Little river. Years ago they had a dam across the Little river at Waddington and a paper mill there. That power has passed into the hands of another company. I am not sure but that if they had a transmission line, power could be obtained from that source. Then we come to Iroquois where Mr. Beach has some surplus power, but I am of the opinion it will never be of use Mr. GRAHAM.
until somebody builds a transmission line. Now without any thought of damming the St. Lawrence river to get power, I do. not see why this House should not grant a charter to a transmission line, a charter robbed of everything else, and give us an opportunity to get the power that runs along that- line for the development of our industries. That is all I have asked for, and all I want. And 1 do not think it is reasonable that the House, in the face of the present situation, with the Bill amended as I want it amended, so as to give the company no power except to run a transmission line-I say that I think it is not treating that part of the province fairly, it is not treating the constituency I represent fairly to say, when we think we have a chance to get power in this way that we should not have the right to have a transmission line for that power. I know the situation thoroughly, and I say again that all we are asking for and all that is wanted is power to transmit electricity. If it is not granted under such a Bill as this, we cannot get it. I believe there is power enough already developed along the route of that transmission line to supply the towns that are asking for power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. minister think that this is not in any way connected witn the St. Lawrence Power Company or that when this Bill is passed the one company will not be the complement of the -other? If not, why is this called The St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company,' while the other is ' The St. Lawrence Power Company'? I take it, the ownership is the same in both cases, and one company is the complement of the other, the one intended to develop power and the other to transmit it.


George Perry Graham: I did not see the BiL when it was first drawn, but as it stands now it precludes this transmission line from taking the power from works not already constructed. So, this transmission company is tied down to powers developed in -works now established and constructed. So, that gets over the objection of my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) altogether. And I think it -ought to.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I am sura the House was pleased with many of the remarks of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads it, and agrees with him to a great extent in those remarks. I did, for my part. He was opposed to a scheme to dam the St. Lawrence. He sympathized with those who were suspicious of the Bill before the House. But when these amendments were introduced bv the hon. gentleman who moved the Bill, all objection was Temoved from the right hon. gentleman's mind, because he saw at once that, by the very reason of this amend-

ment. the Bill, which up to that time, amply justified suspicion on both sides of the House, was robbed of any features that might justify suspicion. Possibly the right hon. gentleman may view the Bill from one standpoint and I from another. But I would ask hon. members to consider what this amendment is, and see if it justifies the conclusion that the right hon. gentleman-perhaps I might say a little too confiding in his opinion of the promoters of the Bill-has reached in connection with this matter. Let us read the amendment:
Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to constitute an approval by parliament of any future development of water-power by erecting a dam in or across the St. Lawrence river under the Act 1 Edward VII., chapter 3, intituled: ' An Act to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company,' or otherwise..
Suppose that the amendment had not been moved at all, how in the world would the Bill differ from what it is ? Can anybody suggest the slightest thing in which the Bill minus this amendment is different from the Bill plus this amendment? There is nothing in this Bill about damming the St. Lawrence. Nobody has ever contended that this Bill said anything that would give the right to anybody to dam the St. Lawrence. And, inasmuch as it does not give that right, how can it affect the existing condition to put in a clause declaring that nothing contained in the Bill shall be deemed to constitute an approval by parliament of that course?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Read the Balance, please.


William Barton Northrup: One tiling at a time. There are two clauses. So far as the first clause is concerned, the law would be precisely the same without this amendment as it will be with it. Now, if we find a clause inserted which is obviously meaningless, yet so artfully drawn that it appealed to the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) himself-even though ft. may be, he has more confidence in the promoters of this Bill than some other members of the House have-and who, reading it cursorily, thought it meant something, is not that reason why we should be -all the more suspicious of the real purpose behind this Bill ? The amendment goes on:
Nor shall the company hereby incorporated he authorized to transmit power generated by the St. Lawrence Power Company other than the power generated by and in connection with the works already constructed by the said St. Lawrence Power Company.
That is to say, this company is asking the authority to transmit only the power which can be manufactured by the St, Lawrence Power Company with its development up to date Why does not the St,
Lawrence Power Company transmit its own electricity ? We have been told by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr Graham) that the object of the Bill is simply and solely to give this new corporation the power to transmit electricity. If the original company had not authority to transmit electricity, there must be some ground for that argument. But has the St. Lawrence Power Company the right to transmit electricity or has it not? There cannot he the shadow of a doubt about it. Section S says:
8.	The company may-
(a)	manufacture, use, supply and dispose of
electricity, water and gas, and water, hydraulic or other power by means of wires

There are your wires.
-cables, pipes, conduits, machinery or other appliances.
So, not only has it the power to manufacture electricity,-which would be an idle boon in itself -but it has the right to transmit it by any known means. And, that there may be no doubt that it is intended that they should have the power both to produce and transmit their powers are defined by restriction at one point, Section 9 says:
(b)	The company shall not permit any wire to be less than twenty-two feet above such highway or public place.
So, not only have they the express power to transmit electricity, but they are further circumscribed in the limitation of not being allowed to place any wire less than 22 feet above the public street. Thus, it is clear that the original power company had and has to-day, the right to erect its line and transmit all the power manufactured.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Not over the same territory that this Bill covers.


William Barton Northrup: Practically the same territory.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No.
Mr. NORTHRUP, What limit does the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) find in the original Act ?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Only as far as Hoople's creek.


William Barton Northrup: I think the hon. member has been confused by a clause which does limit the power of the company, and which, perhaps, incidentally, sheds a light on this Bill. But that clause has nothing to do with the transmission of electricity. The other evening, I referred to the dif ference between the two Bills and I may take the liberty of doing it again. Section 14, of the St. Lawrence Power Company's Act gives the company power of expropriation, but limits it in this way:

Lands actually required for the construction and maintenance of the power canals, water-courses, raceways and reservoirs necessary for the utilization or operation of water-powers belonging to the company may be taken and acquired by the company.
And the Railway Act is applied thereto. But the lands referred to are simply those that the company may wish to expropriate for the construction of buildings and reservoirs in connection with their works. But we find that the present Bill proposes greater powers in regard to expropriation. And it may be that that is the secret of the present Bill. When we find that the power company has the right to do all that hon. members opposite, and the Minister of Railways, and the gentleman who promotes the Bill, say is asked by this Bill, is it any wonder that we on this side are doubly suspicious? When we consider the powers asked for by the new company, we find that they are powers generally to expropriate under the Railway Act. And one must not forget the case from British Columbia-the province vs. the Canadian Pacific railway, I believe it was-in which it was held that where, under the Railway Act, expropriation is made of lands which are vested in the Crown for the purposes of the province, that expropriation may lawfully be made. It is perfectly clear that under the original St. Lawrence Power Company Act they would have no power to expropriate the lands vested in the Crown for the benefit of the province for the transmission of electricity. They might do so for the construction of works and building of reservoirs, but it is clear that they would not have power beyond that limited purpose. In this Bill the land of the province whether under the bed of the river or wherever it may be, could be expropriated because the Railway Act applies generally giving the power of expropriation to this company just us to a railway company. When we find these suspicious circumstances the right hon. gentleman and those beside him might not be surprised if we said frankly with him that if we believed that this Bill was only to allow a certain amount of electricity generated to be transmitted, we would have no objection


Wilfrid Laurier: What else is there in the Bill?


William Barton Northrup: I have been trying to point out several objectionable features and one is that the present St. Lawrence Power Company has the right to develop and transmit electricity. At the same time when we find a Bill of this kind coming in and being fought so vigorously for such a trifling purpose, that too is enough to make us suspicious, and if any one will read the history of the unfortunate negotiations which began by the contract between M.


William Barton Northrup: P. Davis and the late administration, he will be confirmed in those suspicions. I have no desire to so far forget my duty as to relieve the late government from blame, because I think they are deserving of a great deal of blame for the bargain the Conservative party made with M. P. Davis. I think it was an improvident and improper bargain, and should not have been made, but it was made. If the right hon. gentleman takes up the history of that case from the time it was started with that improper bargain he will find that if liis predecessors chastised the people of this country with whips, he arid his government have chastised them with scorpions, because in 1900, when for the first time something was intended to be done, a new contract was made by the right hon. gentleman's administration, ten times worse than the original contract. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would have less confidence in the promoters of this Bill and their intentions if he bore in mind that the contract made in 1900 was an illegal contract. I would not venture to tell'the minister that they had made an illegal and improvident contract were it not that I had been fortified by a legal opinion which the right hon. gentleman would not dispute. The Auditor General refused to pay accounts, and he obtained the opinion of Mr. A. B. Aylesworth, K. C., of Toronto, before that hon. gentleman became a member of the government, as one of the leaders of the bar in Ontario. He informed his client, the Auditor General, frankly, freely and honestly, as of course he would always give his opinion, that it was an utterly illegal contract. When we find that the origin of this transaction was an illegality, and when we see the continuous difficulty experienced by the Auditor General year after year in trying to protect the treasury from the very gentlemen who are behind this Bill, I think we are justified in this year 1910 in saying that we are suspicious of another Bill, professing to attain so trifling an end, and employing so much material to obtain it. If we are wrong and hon. gentlemen opposite are right, then if the Bill were allowed to stand over for a year, could any grievous wrong be done to any one? The power has not been used. The public has got along without it. It is asserted that this is a part of a larger scheme and I am sure no member would defend the larger scheme if it is as it is represented to be. If that be the case and the worst that could happen by throwing out or postponing this Bill is that the people of the St. Lawrence will be further delayed in obtaining the electricity which they have not yet obtained, that will not be a very serious matter. But if we are right and the hon. gentlemen opposite are wrong, if, as many of us in the province of Ontario believe, the effect of this Bill is to

complete a contract intended to be made, and supposed to be made in 1900, but which by an oversight of the draughtsman was not made, surely it is better that this country should be protected, even now, than when it is too late we should discover what we have done. Hon. gentlemen must remember that it is a matter of common notoriety that Canada, owning great powers there, has derived little from them, and many of them are gone. One thousand dollars a year is all the Dominion receives from the dam which the Dominion built. It is a matter of common report that not more than $100,000 to $120,000 were expended by the St. Lawrence Power Company, and they sold out for nearly one million dollars. That means that parliament has already made a present to these fortunate individuals of nearly $1,000,000. Under these circumstances i appeal to the right lion, gentleman not to hurry the House into legislation which it might be impossible for us to retract. I venture to say to him that if the Bill of 1901 were being proposed to-day, it would not take us long to secure what we are asking, that it should at least stand over until the next year. I think we are all to blame for allowing that Bill to pass the House. Probably the right hon. gentleman did not know more about it than I did personally at that time; we all know how these Bills pass through the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: mation. That seems to connect the two institutions. It seems to me that there is no doubt that by the Bill of 1901 power was given to the St. Lawrence Power Company to erect a dam upon the St. Lawrence river extending to the international line. In that case we have to consider whether or not we are going to supplement that Act by means of the Bill before the House today. I am quite safe in saying, I think, that had we the St. Lawrence Power Bill before us to-day we would not give our consent to it. The St. Lawrence Power Bill of 1901 gave the right to that company to generate and transmit electricity, and the reason for the present Bill, in my humble opinion, is that the Bill of 1901, while it gave power to generate and transmit electricity, did not give a power that this company 'are* getting, namely, the power to enter municipalities and take from private individuals their property without consent. These powers of expropriation are omitted from the Bill of 1901, and they simply want these powers to-day to supplement the powers which they got in 1901. I venture to say that the hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill will not consent to the expunging of the expropriation powers. Otherwise the Bill is altogether useless to be used in conjunction with the Bill of 1901. That being the case, we must consider these two Bills together, and we must consider whether we are prepared to grant the company the rights contained in this Bill. The Bill gives them all the powers of expropriation contained ip. the Railway Act as far as they are applicable, and in addition it gives them further powers. It provides that the word ' land ' as used in the Railway Act, shall include the words ' easement or privilege '. In other words, the company have the right to purchase by expropriation, not only land as provided for in the Railway Act, but also easements and privileges. So that, in considering all the powers that they have we have to add the words ' easement and privilege ', to ' land ' as specified in the Railway Act. What would be the effect of this legislation? Take section 151 of the Railway Act, which is the expropriation clause and reading that section into this Act the language would be as follows. This company will have the power to:
Purchase, take and hold of from any person, any lands, easements or privileges, or other property necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its works and also alienate, sell or dispose of, any lands, easement, privilege or property of the company which for any reason have become not necessary for the purposes of this undertaking. .
Take section 176, read into that the provision of this Bill, and it will read as follows :


Mr. MIDRLEBRO.: The company may take possession of, use or occupy any lands, easements or privileges belonging to any other transmission company, use and enjoy the whole or any portion thereof, &c.
Then take section 179. Where it says that lands may be taken without the consent of the owners, it will read ' lands, easements, or privileges ' and it will provide that these will be taken without the consent of the owners. Section 180 provides that the company shall file plans shewing the route of their proposed transmission line. That section will be quite applicable to the proposed company. Section 192 provides that:
The deposit of a plan, profile and book of references, and the notice of such deposit, shall be deemed a general notice to all parties o-f the lauds, easements and privileges which will be required for the purposes of the company.
I would like to know if that section is going to apply. It shows into what entanglements one may be led by making the Railway Act apply to a company organized for the transmission of electricity, and I am sure we would never consent to passing it in its present condition. It would give the right to this company to construct their poles over the houses and barns of private owners. Once you grant the right of expropriation they can expropriate that right so long as they compensate for the injury. As this Bill gives them the right to expropriate an easement or privilege they have the right to construct their wires along the sides, or on top of houses, or on the poles of other companies. I am sure it is not the intention of this parliament to allow this company any such pri-lege. Then, there is the right to expropriate private property which is expressly excepted from the Act of 1901. The Act of 1901 says that:
Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize the company to enter upon any private property for tile purpose of erecting, maintaining or repairing any of its works, without the previous assent of the owner or occupant of the property for the time being.
This gives the company that privilege and it is for that very purpose, for the purpose of getting what they were not given in 1901 with "respect to the transmission of electricity, that this company are making application to-day. In addition, they have the right, without the consent of the municipality, to go to the municipality, and erect their transmission line. That right is expressly excepted from the Act of 1901 by section 9 which says:
The company for the purpose of constructing and maintaining its works may with the consent of the municipal council or other authority having jurisdiction over the same enter on any highway, square or other publio

place and as often as the company thinks proper, may with like consent op^n any highway, square or public place, &c.
There is no provision for compulsory expropriation under this Act. Taking all these facts into consideration, and speaking now upon the Bill itself-and there are many other objectionable matters that could be brought to the attention of the government if I were to speak in connection with the St. Lawrence Power Company and its proposed plans to be submitted to the government-but, simply speaking of the Bill itself as it appears before us it should not pass in its present shape. I claim that the amendment suggested by the promoter of the Bill does not in any wav safeguard the public; on the contrary I hold that it is injurious to the public. The first part of the amendment says:
Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to constitute an approval by parliament of any future development of water-power by erecting a dam in or across the St. Lawrence river under the Act 1 Edward VII., chapter 3, intituled: 'An Act to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company,' or otherwise.
That means nothing because if the company has the power now we are not taking it from it then, and if it has not the power we are not giving it, so that it makes no difference. The amendment goes on to say:
Nor shall the company hereby incorporated be authorized to transmit power generated by the St. Lawrence Power Company other than the power generated by and in connection with the works already constructed by the said St. Lawrence Power Company.
This means that we prohibit the St. Lawrence Power Company from passing over its transmission line any power except such as is at present generated, by works already constructed and what the petition presented to the House states is 2,300 horse-power, and as that petition also states they are capable of developing 6,000 horse-power we are in fact restricting them from transmitting about 4,000 horse-power over these proposed lines. In other words we are actually preventing the development of the resources of the power already there to be used in this country, and we. are practically providing a means by which the power shall go somewhere else, probably across into the United States. Now, I would like to know whether this parliament is going to have an opportunity of assenting to or rejecting the proposed plans of the St. Lawrence Power Company. The Minister of Public Works seems in some of his remarks to indicate that parliament is not going to be consulted. On the 13th of March, 'Hansard' page 5507 he said:
Such information has not come to me and I am not aware of it having come to any
other member of the government, or any other department. With regard to the compensation to be paid, I, as Minister of Public VVorks, have been called on to consider the matter with the view of determining what would he fair to Canada in ease we should finally approve of these works; and I am prepared to say that, so far as my department is concerned-and it will have a goo*i deal to do with the fixing of rates-it will recommend to council that no agreement he entered into and no approval, be given the works of the company unless there goes into the treasury of Canada as much revenue from this power as will go into the treasury of the state of New York.
From this it would seem quite plain that the Minister of Public Works does not think it is necessary to come to parliament to say what compensation shall be paid by this company for the power they propose to get. It seems to me that under the provisions of the Act of 1901 it may not be necessary for the company to come here, because we have already passed legislation saying they may build a dam to the centre of the River St. Lawrence to the international line, and on the other side the state of New York has given the Long Sault Company similar power, so that when they have their works constructed in each respective case they will have a complete dam across the St. Lawrence river, and then all they need have is the approval of the Governor in Council as mentioned in the Act of 1901. I would like to have an assurance from the Prime Minister that the government shall not in this case act by order in council, but that this parliament will have something to say as to what they shall pay for that power just as the legislature of the state of New York had the right to fix the compensation to be paid on the other side. I wish an assurance upon this point?


Wilfrid Laurier: Upon what point?


William Sora Middlebro: Upon the question whether or not under the Act of 1901 the fixing of remuneration to be paid will be by order in council or by a Bill submitted to this parliament?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I remember that I stated lauo year that in a matter of this kind the government would not take any action except after consulting parliament.	.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the Prime Minister be willing to have a clause to that effect inserted in this Bill?


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not have any objection at all.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not seem to me that the government can be quite as 1 indifferent to a Bill of this kind as the

Prime Minister suggests. The modern doctrine in Great Britain at least is that the government by virtue of their control of parliament are held responsible not only for public legislation, but for private legislation as well. It seems to me that much the same rule ought to prevail here. But even assuming that such would not be the case in ordinary instances we must remember that this is not an ordinary case This is a proposal to deal with a great international water-way. It is a proposal also to enter into a scheme which may affect at some time or other international relations, and. therefore, it is of the utmost possible importance that the Bill, although introduced as a Private Bill, should nevertheless be most carefully considered by the administration, and that the government should have absolute responsibility with regard to it. I do not see how the government can avoid that responsibility. I understand it is not a government measure in the ordinary sense, but still in respect to a subject of this kind it seems to me the government must accept responsibility as direct, and as immediate as if this Bill were a government measure. Now, the Act of 1901 was passed without any discussion whatever in this House. There was no discussion on the second reading or on the third reading or in the committee. I was in the House at that time, and in common with my hon. friend from Hastings I have to accept the responsibility for the fact that there was no discussion. But one reason for that I suppose was that a great many of these Bills which do not attract attention are accepted in Committee of the Whole House by reason of the fact that they have been passed by the Select Committee. I do not suppose that any member of this House at that time grasped the full significance of the language which is to be found in section 8 of that Bill. That section conferred upon the St. Lawrence Power Company, which as we all know, and as has been practically admitted, is only another name for the company which is promoting this Bill. I do not think it * has been denied that the persons who control the St. Lawrence Power Company are the promoters of this Bill.


Samuel Hughes: Pardon me a moment- the two companies are owned, and controlled by the Long Sault Construction Company. The St. Lawrence Power Company, and the St. Lawrence Transmission Company are owned, and controlled by the Long Sault Company, and I challenge denial of that statement.	.


Robert Laird Borden: The St. Lawrence Power Company under another name is now coming to parliament for some further rights and privileges. It is not important at the present moment to consider how far-Mr. K. L. BOEDEN.
reaching the powers it wants from parliament may be. It wants those powers for the purpose of carrying out a scheme. That scheme involves the damming of the St. Lawrence. They have power at the present time* under one of their charters, to dam the St. Lawrence as far as the international boundary. That has not been and cannot in my opinion be successfully denied. There is a certain qualification upon the power thus conferred upon them. That qualification is contained in the proviso to be found in subsection (a) of clause 8 of the Act of 1901. It is in these words:
Provider! that the works hereby authorized shall not be commenced until the plans thereof have first been submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council.
My right hon. friend said on a previous occasion, I think it was last session, or it may have been this session, that he regarded that project as of such vital importance to the people of this country that nothing would be done to carry it out without the consent of parliament. That, I understand, to be his position; if it is not, he will correct me. I would suggest to him that, if that be his position, it would be proper now to say to this- company, which is coming here under another name; ' The importance of the rights which were conferred upon you in 1901 was not recognized at the time; it is more fully recognized now, for many reasons which I need not stop to enumerate. For one thing, we realize, more than we did in 1901, the very great importance to the people of these water-powers.' Why, then, would it not be opportune, when this company is asking for further privileges, to insert in this Bill a distinct provision making it absolutely necessary that the approval of parliament shall be obtained before any such plans are approved? The right they have obtained is a qualified right; it is subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. Would it not be a fair and reasonable proposition, in view of what has since transpired, and in view of the importance of this subject in the eyes of the people of this country, that we should go a step further and say that the Governor in Council shall not approve of any plans until those plans have been first submitted to and approved by parliament. I would suggest that to the right hon. gentleman as a reasonable rider to this Bill, and it seems to me that it would go very far in the direction of satisfying certain criticisms which have been made on the Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have already stated to my hon. friend that for my part I have no objection at all, and I think
the government have no objection to such a proposition, because practically we

have stated that, whether we are bound by law or not, it is our intention to do so. Many people in this country are nervous in regard to the possible damming of the St. Lawrence. I have stated to the House the various objections, and for my part I have one also. At the present time, with the information I have, I would not consent on any consideration to have the St. Lawrence dammed. I give my opinion as to that with perfect candour. I may say to my hon. friend that I do not altogether admit the position he has taken, that I am responsible for all private legislation. There is private legislation of different kinds. For instance, there are divorce Bills fori which I cannot be held to be personally responsible. But the question of this Bill depends altogether on what powers are intended to be conferred b,y it. At first blush it is simply a Bill for the transmission of electrical energy. To the ordinary mind there is nothing objectionable at all in that. But the objection arises at the point that this electrical energy, must be generated somewhere, and the suspicion is that it would be generated by damming the St._ Lawrence. My hon. friends on the other side object to that. I am opposed to it also, and in ordeT to make the matter, perfectly plain I have no objection to accepting the amendment suggested bv the hon. leader of the opposition, that no works shall be carried on without the consent of parliament having been first obtained.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say that I hold my hon. friend politically though not personally responsible for all the divorces which have been granted in parliament, 1 have drawn up an amendment as I would suggest, although I cannot say that it has been very carefully considered. I will send a copy of it over to the right hon. gentleman, and perhaps he will look over it and in the meantime defer the consideration of the Bill.


William Pugsley: Before the amendment is put, I wish to say that on the 14th of March, when this Bill was under discussion, I made the following statement:


Mr.  J. D.@: REID Has your department power to do that without the consent of parliament?


William Pugsley: I think not. Parliament will have to consent to the matter in the end. and my recollection is that some time a^o, in answer to a question put by the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) the Prime Minister stated that before the plans were approved of. the whole matter would be submitted to parliament for consideration, and before definite action would be taken, parliament must be satisfied that the work will he in the interest of Canada.
All the remarks I made as to what m,y department would do, as to requiring that at least one-half the power should be reserved for Canada, and as to the rates to 199
be charged for that power, were based upon the contingency as to whether or not the plans would be finally approved of, and I stated positively, not once merely, but twice, that the Prime Minister had given to parliament the assurance that the plans would not be approved of and that no action would be finaly taken until after th* whole matter had been submitted to parliament and parliament was satisfied that the work would be in the interest of Canada .


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When the first application was made, I understand that the government's! engineers reported against1" it, but when it was considered a second time, the same engineers recommended it. Did not that look as if the government intended to approve of the project?


William Pugsley: Not at all. That did not look to the action that the government or parliament might take. The charge has been made in some of the newspapers which have, i regret to say, twisted and distorted and falsified to a most extraordinary degree what took place during the very interesting and pleasant debate which lasted all night some time ago, that I had made the remark in the House that plans had been prepared some time ago; and one paper stated that those plans had been prepared by my department, and that I was not willing to make them public, and refused to produce them or to give an,y information in regard to them, conveying the impression that they had been kept secret. As early as the 14th of January, in answer to a question which had been put to me, I stated that the company had submitted plans of which they had asked the approval of the Governor in Council. I stated that the government had referred those plans to the engineers of the three departments of Public Works, Railways and Canals and Marine and Fisheries, and that the engineers had reported adversely to the plans; that subsequently, about a year afterwards, I think, new plans were presented, and those also were referred to the engineers,and they had reported rather favourably on them, with certain limitations; and'further that those plans had been referred to the International Waterways Commission. At the time when I was asked to produce the plans they were not in my possession, they were not in the po-ssession of my department, hut they were in the possession of a member of the International Waterways Commission. It was about midnight when I was asked to produce them. I stated that before the -Bill was finally disposed of, I would be happy to produce them, and that if the committee desired to have them I would produce them, even though the Bill had nothing whatever to do with the damming of the St. Lawrence.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that the hon. gentleman was also asked to produce the report of the Waterways Commission and the Conservation Commission, because we were given to understand that one or both of these bodies had considered the question and reported. But I * have not been able to find that report.


William Pugsley: The report which was asked for by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) was the report of the engineers. I stated that the commissioners had not yet reported. It has also been put forward in the press that the Act of 1901 had been concealed, and that the hon. member for Westmorland produced startling information to the House when he read that Act of 1901. The hon. member for Westmorland will do me the justice to say that it was I who called his attention to that Act, and it was sent for and he then read it to the House. I mention this in order to show that so far as I w as concerned, and the same remark will apply to every other member who was supporting this Bill, there was no disposition to keep back anything from the committee, no desire to withhold any information, Now, having made this statement, I desire to say that so far as I am concerned, I see no objection whatever to accepting the amendment proposed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. My hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) said that if this was a transmission line pure and simple, and he could be satisfied of that fact, he would support the Bill Now, I would invite that hon. gentleman to suggest any statement, if by racking his brain he can think of any amendment which will make this more simply and more purely a transmission power Bill than it is, I for one would gladly accept it. I do not believe that language can be used to make it more clearly and purely a trans mission Bill, I do not think any other language can be used which would more surely prevent it from being a Bill for the generation of electrical energy or for the construction of any works for generating electricity; it is purely and simply a power transmission Bill. But if any amendment would make it so more clearly than the language which is used, I would support such an amendment. But, perhaps, that may not now be necessary in view of the amendment of the leader of the opposition, to which I have no objection.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Let me call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that the chairman of the Hydro-Electric Commission, in the strongest terms has protested against this measure. At the same time he has presented facts to show that the town of Brockville and the district about it has been thoroughly investigated, engineers have gone over that road twice, Mr. iPUGSLEY.
and are prepared to furnish these municipalities with power in the near future. He distinctly says that the municipalities in eastern Ontario have applied for power to the Hydro-Electric-Commission, as appears by the following list:
Municipalities in easterji Ontario who have applied for power to the Hydro-Rlectrio Power Commission.	. .	[DOT]
Amount asked for by the municipality.
Kingston, 2,500 H.P.; Belleville, 3,200 H.P.; Deseronto, 300 H.P.; Brockville, 500 to 1,000 H.P.; Oshawa, 500 H.P.; Cobourg, 900 H P.; Bowmanville, 600 H.P.; Port Hope, Whitby and Picton. 500 H.P., no price quoted yet; Durham, 2,000 H.P., uo price quoted yet. Prescott and Napanee asked to be quoted on power, but no specific amount.
The minister must recognize this fact as well, that the Hydro-Electric Power Commission had the second and fourth reports of water-power prepared, and the territory covered by these reports lies between Toronto and Brockville.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend asked me a question a moment ago. which I did not answer, because. I was called out. I know the complete history of the negotiations with Brockville. I repeat that so far as Brockville is concerned, there never was any serious attempt by the Hydro-Electric Commission to give them one ounce of power. Some letters were written, from which no result came. I think if my hon. friend will investigate, he will find that by the action of the legislature, no provision was made during last session for any power in this part of Ontario, but for the west. However, I repeat the assertion, that no serious attempt was ever made by the chairman of the Hydro-Electric Commission to give Brockville power, though one or two letters were written.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by serious attempt. The hon. gentleman knows that the fourth report was published in 1907, and in that report it is definitely stated, under the heading: 'Power conditions, in the St. Lawrence river district,' that Brockville with a population of 9,000 used an average horse-power of 900; Cornwall with a population of 7,600, used 4,485 horse-power; Iroquois, with a population of 1,200, used 85 horse-power; Gana-noque, with a population of 4,000, used 900 horse-power, and so on. I have a letter from the chairman of the Hydro-Electric Commission stating in the most emphatic language, that it is their purpose, just as early as possible, to establish the power transmission lines asked for, and have the people and municipalities in that district supplied with electric energy. He says in a letter to me:
We expect to continue the Niagara fine east probably as far as Brockville or even Prescott

and Cornwall, supplying the power from the Niagara in as far as economical, probably to Port Hope or Cobourg, the supply to be augmented at the Trent river, unless all the power of the Trent is absorbed by private companies in the meantime, and from some point farther east. Eventually we would have a continuous high voltage transmission system from Windsor in the west to Cornwall in tlje east.
we had little difficulty in getting power at a low price at Niagara Falls, viz., $9, as the province controls the developments there, but we will be helpless in the east if the development companies and transmission companies are operating under Dominion charters.
Now that is a most emphatic statement, and the minister knows full well that if these companies get Dominion charters, it will be practically impossible for the Hydro-Electric Commission to obtain that power from the St. Lawrence or from other water-powers.
One member suggested that the company should be compelled to sell power in Canada at the same price as they intend selling over in the United States. There is such a clause in the agreements with the companies at the Falls, and if we had not the drastic power that we have to expropriate, &c., we would not be buying power at $9, as the companies on the American side have an arrangement amongst themselves not to sell power for less than $18.
The minister knows full well that in the Ottawa district, where the Hydro-Electric Commission have control of the powers, they have had a profit of over $23,000 on the right side of the ledger, after deducting the charges of building the transmission lines here. As to the cost of power, I might read a little further from this letter:
There are three things that go to make up the cost of power; power at $9 at the Falls, interest on sinking fund and investment and operation. The price of power is fixed at $9, and all contracts have been let for the building of the line, and the fact that the cost is under the estimates enables me to say definitely that power will be delivered at the estimated cost price.
Yet the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) rose in his place the other evening, and told us that the powey would cost the municipalities of Ontario two or three times this amount.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It will be safer to multiply it by four.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: We can easily put the hon. member's (Mr. Carvell's) knowledge of water-powers and transmission lines in a district about which he knows nothing in contrast with that of the man who is at the head of the Hydro-Electric Commission and knows all about it. Mr. Beck says;
The line is capable of transmitting 65,000 horse-power, the contracts amount to less than 199J
half this amount, and so you will readily see how the price will drop as the consumption increases. The city of Toronto offers power for ten hours, I understand, at $17.85 per horse-power.
One of the most serious matters in connection with the St. Lawrence power development, and the building of a dam in this country is the fact that Canada practically loses control of the St. Lawrence river as a navigable stream. The channel is diverted to the American side where locks are to be built, but not on the Canadian side.
The Minister of Railways and Canals referred to the maps that are before us. It was my privilege to investigate some of the other maps which I do not see here to-night, and which were in charge of the clerk. On one of these maps I noticed it was indicated that there would be on the American side of the boundary line 50 turbines., while on the Canadian side there would be only 11 turbines. And, taking into consideration the fact that the people of Canada can have no control over the laws of the state of New York, it would be absurd for us to expect that we should be able to compel an American company to transmit a portion of that power to Canada for the development of our industries. Let me read further from this letter:
The territory covered by these reports lies between Toronto and Brockville. Eleven municipalities in the territory have asked for estimates and negotiated with the commission for a supply of power, and others are about to apply.
If the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) was not aware of this fact, it is time he should be.
The object of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission is to supply power at cost to as many municipalities as possible, and the commission propose to provide a supply of power for all municipalities that can be advantageously served.
If the Bill is passed, the company would have authority to transmit power into a large section of the territory to be supplied by the commission, and a dual system of transmission lines would be the result. The commission has always considered that where municipalities are prepared to co-operate and so increase the demand for power from one source a dual system is a hindrance to municipalities in the working out of their plane, and such a system should not be encouraged.
*
After these emphatic statements by the chairman of the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario, directly opposed to this measure, after the statement of the chairman of the International Waterways Commission, of the Board of Trade of Montreal, of the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, of the provincial government of Ontario, and of practically all the navigation companies whose vessels ply on this
6256

river St. Lawrence, I cannot but feel that we are taking a step in the wrong direction in allowing this measure to pass at the present time. I sincerely hope it will be left over for another session to make a thorough investigation and see if it is not possible to have the provincial government of Ontario in control of this water-power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Perhaps I shall bt pardoned if I participate a little in this-post mortem examination with respect to this Bill. I think it will be in the memory of every member of this committee that when this Bill was first committed to this Committee of the Whole the objection raised to it was largely upon the ground of it being an infringement of provincial rights and an interference with the HydroElectric .Commission of Ontario. Up to that point, I had not offered any suggestions to the committee with respect to the Bill. But, some information being in my possession at the time, I thought it was due to the committee that I should call the attention of hon. members to what I conceived to be a very much stronger objection to the acceptance of this Bill. I believed that this Bill (No. 115) was but a preliminary to another Bill that was to be introduced in parliament at this very session giving certain powers in connection with the damming of the River St. Lawrence. And, conceiving such a proposition to be against the best interests of Canada. I felt that- the time had come to raise objection. My hon friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr Pugsley) is quite correct in stating that he called my attention to the fact that it would not be necessary for any company to come to parliament to seek the power to dam the St. Lawrence, because that power was already granted them by Act of this parliament passed some years ago, a fact with which he was familiar, because there had recently come before him certain plans for approval, plans which could only come before him under authority of some Act, and under that Act the approval of the government was sought for these plans. 1 then, as I conceived it to be my duty, called the attention of the committee to the fact that this, after all, was a grand scheme to secure, in the interest of foreign capitalists, the water-powers that properly belonged to Canada. I think I mentioned on that- occasion that by reason of the darn that would necessarily be constructed, ninety per cent of the flow of water would be tb'-	tb- AmerK-M'i side. My hon.
friend the Minister of Public Works very properly said that that would be safeguarded, that there would be restrictions as to the use of this power, and that care would be taken that Canada's interests should be safeguarded and that at least half the power would be secured for Canadian industries. Well, it is one thing to Mr. ARMSTRONG.
make such a proposition, and it is another thing to carry it out; 1 think I said that, while you might have an arrangement, agreements and contracts, still it would be a matter of practical impossibility to enforce them. I objected to this Bill on the ground that it was part of a scheme to dam the St. Lawrence and secure for a great American corporation the water privileges of the St. Lawrence. I was not in full possession of the facts, but I said it was worthy of the consideration of this committee and of the House and of the people of Canada, and that we should wait in order that we might inquire and learn the facts. I have felt that much good was done by reason of the action which was taken in connection with this particular Bill, and I am the more convinced of it from what has transpired here to-night. The promoter of the Bill has proposed a -certain amendment, and there are certain other amendments which have been suggested, all of which I hope will be adopted. If any or all of these amendments -are adopted,, I think the House and the country can recognize that the sting has been taken out of the mouth and the rattle out of the tail of the rattle snake, and it does not now have even the semblance of a rattle snake. I have not been convinced of the necessity of a transmission-of-power line. I view the matter from this standpoint that with the power that has been developed there, with the power available for distribution, the company which developed that power has authority to transmit and to distribute, and I do not see the necessity of any new company being empowered by this parliament to distribute that power. The very first thing that convinced me that this was a part of a great scheme was the reading of part of section 6 where it says:
Lay and maintain pipes, cables, wires or other conductors and connect them with similar lines in other provinces and with simi- , lar lines in the United States for the purpose of importation only.
If this was a mere little innocent transmission power company to distribute the power being developed on the Canadian side, I cannot conceive of their coming to this parliament and asking for power to connect with lines in- the United States, and it is because of the wording of the Bill that I was led to -conclude that this Bill was part of a greater scheme and one that would be to the injury of Canada. I am confirmed in the belief that it was such a scheme,- but having in every way divested it of its power to do harm I am perfectly satisfied. The objection taken by me on a former occasion has, I think, been sustained and acknowledged and removed as far as it is possible to remedy legislation in that direction if you pass the Bill at all. The Minister of Railways has very fairly

made a plea in the interests of his constituency that some company shall be empowered to transmit the power that is already being developed. That is a question of fact as to the conditions prevailing. I am not in a position to judge of that; those representing St. Lawrence constituencies must be the best judges, and as the matter now stands I would feel free to support a harmless power transmission company. But I would not feel free to support any measure that would involve this country in conditions which prevail in some other sections of Canada to-day, by reason of the legislation of this parliament, as for example the conditions that are cropping up at Port Frances. These things we must guard against and I think we have guarded against them in this particular case. As the matter now stands, I feel at liberty with the amendments which have been suggested to support the Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: One reason why I submit the Bill should not go through is that it is admitted that the gentlemen who are in this company are to purchase the power from the St. Lawrence Power Company and then they will sell it to the towns of Prescott and Brockville, the Railway Commission having the right to fix the rates at which the transmission company sell to these towns. But the commission cannot regulate the rates at which it shall be sold by the power company to the transmission company and the transmission company have a capital of $200,000. The line will not cost $25,000 and they will make the people pay a dividend on a lot of watered stock and a double profit. If the Minister of Railways and Canals is so anxious, as I believe he is, to get power to Brockville, it has been argued here that the St. Lawrence Power Company now have power to run a transmission line to Brockville. If he will say to this company; Run your transmission line to Brockville at once or otherwise I will cancel your contract, that line would be built. We are paying $52,000 a year to that company for 400 horse-power to open and shut the gates and are not using more than 45 horse-power. We pay $63 a horsepower, and when the government confirmed that contract in October, 1900, just before the elections, the company were selling power at Cornwall at $12.50 a horse-power. That contract for 400 horse-power is for 89 years. The present Minister of Justice, on the application of the Auditor General, gave an opinion saying possibly the making of this contract was a distinct infraction of section 11 of the Act respecting the Department of Railways and Canals, Revised Statutes of Canada, ch. 37, which says:
The minister shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of all works except in cases of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to tbe public interest or in which the nature of the work 't can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the minister.
The contract they have is illegal, and it was in 1900 that this government amended the old contract. The late minister, Mr. Blair, amended and extended it. If the Minister of Railways thinks that this Bill would do that then where we would have the advantage of getting cheaper power would be that the Railway Commission would deal with the St. Lawrence Power Company. Supposing this transmission company that is being formed, say: We have to pay the St. Lawrence Power Company $20 or $25 per horse-power, and we are only asking $2 to $3 per horse-power more; nobody could object to that. I cannot see where we are going to get any benefit from the clause in this Bill which says that the Railway Commission shall be referred to. Now, it has been admitted that this power is to come from the St. Lawrence Power Company. The men who are the incorporators of this transmission line company went to the Waterways Commission in Toronto and told them that they were getting this Bill passed, that they proposed to dam the St. Lawrence and they claimed that the damming of the St. Lawrence should be carried out in order that they might get this power. I appeal, in the interests of Brockville and Prescott, to the Minister of Railways, to make the St. Lawrence Power Company send that power up there. Then we will not have to deal with any middle company that we have no control over, and we can then insist that they shall give us a reasonable rate. I do not think that under the Railway Act we can get cheap power from the Railway Commission, but if they were not giving us a reasonable rate we could come to parliament and ask that the Bill be amended, so as to provide that the Board of Railway Commissioners could regulate the rate.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Under the Act of 1901, relating to the St. Lawrence Power Company, have they to submit their charges for power to the Railway Commission, or to anybody?


John Dowsley Reid: To no one at all. That is the point I raise. How are we going to get cheaper power under this transmission Bill? The St. Lawrence Power Company will say to those in this new company: We will put the price at $25 or $30 per horse-power, or whatever we like, and the only redress we have, if they are charging too much, is to ask the Railway Commissioners to regulate the price between this company and the other.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Under this Act this company would have to submit their rates

for transmission to the Railway Commission, would they not?


John Dowsley Reid: This company will, but it is the first company that is the main one, and that is the lame feature of this Bill. If there was the slightest doubt about the association of this company with the St. Lawrence Power Company, which I do not think there is, there might be some reason for it. I submit that this matter is so important that it should be laid over to give us a chance to get these things right, and not try to push it through in this way.


Mr. TURRIFF.: When I opposed this Bill before I did so because I could not understand why the St. Lawrence Power Company should come to parliament now and get a transmission line. There were very good grounds for being suspicious of the Bill because of the way in which it was introduced. The Bill certainly has been shorn of some of the powers that they asked for when they came before this House. But, I am not at all clear in my own mind up to the present whether there is not still, if J may use the expression, a nigger in the fence. The amendment proposed by the gentleman who promotes this Bill (Mr. Pardee), the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) go a long way towards cutting out anything that may be wrong in the Bill, but at the same time what puzzles me is why, with the powers that they have under the Bill of 1901, if it is only a transmission line they want, they come before the House to-day with this Bill even in its present shape. The only point I can see wherein this Bill gives them some advantage that they do not possess under the old Bill is with respect do the right to acquire electrical energy. It seems to me that their object could be accomplished by amending the Bill of 1901 to enable them not only to generate electricity, but to acquire it from other private power companies existing in different parts of the country. They have thg right to transmit under their original Bill. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it has been a good thing that all this opposition has been raised. I think it was a first rate thing that we had an all-night session over this Bill. It has done one thing. It has aroused the people of Canada to the importance of the legislation that was passed by this House in 1901. I did not happen to be a member at that time. If I had been a member I would not have known any more of what that Bill meant than most of those who were in the House at that time.
Mr. PU6SLEY. Was it passed late at night?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


John Gillanders Turriff: No, but the Bill was like a great many Bills that go through this House almost every day; the average member of the House knows mighty little about . the real meaning of them. Had the members of this House, and the people of Canada realized what was being done by the Act of 1901 there would have been a howl from one end of the Dominion to the other. But, fortunately for us that Act is not all sufficient. Fortunately for the people of Canada, and this House the owners of that franchise have to come back and get their plans approved by the Minister of Public Works before they can go on and dani the River St. Lawrence. That has been our safeguard. I think that the thorough discussion-I will not say thorough discussion, because I do not know yet whether it has been thorough or not-but the long discussion that we have had over the matter has awakened us to what might easily and innocently have been done by any minister of the Crown in approving plans without realizing exactly what they mean. The waterpower at the Long Sault dam is a heritage for the people of Canada. It is not our heritage at the present moment, but it may be a heritage for our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren. We do not want that power at the present time in Canada. For every horse-power that can be used within a reasonable distance of the Long Sault rapids there are to-day fifty horse-power that can be developed without going to the St. Lawrence river, which is an international stream.
Another thing we want to be very careful about is accepting engineers' Teports. Take the case of the water-power at Fort Frances, the facts regarding which have been made public. In that case the engineer was a man named Fanning, of whom I have heard for the last 15 years as the very first authority on hydraulic engineering in America. When Mackenzie and Mann established their large electrical power 60 or 70 miles east of Winnipeg on the Winnipeg river, they got this man to report to them before they took action. Now, what did Mr. Fanning do in this case? The promoter of the company, Mr. Backus, and the president of the company, went to the Ontario government with a report from this engineer that only 9,000 horse-power could 'be developed at Fort Frances, and they got the government to agree to the scheme on condition that 4,000 horse-power should be delivered on the Canadian side and the balance on the American side. But within a few months that same engineer gave a report that from 36,000 to 38,000 horse-power could be developed at Fort Frances, and the result was that 4,000 horse-power was to be used at Fort Frances and the balance of 34,000 horse-power on the American side. That shows how care-

ful we ought to be about engineers' reports before giving away franchises which we have no right to give away. I was delighted to hear the words of the Prime Minister to-night, and I agree with him that we should not at the present time give oyer this St. Lawrence power to a Canadian company, let alone to an American company, at any price they might pay to the state of New York for that privilege of damming the St. Lawrence on the American side. I can tell you, Sir, that their object is not, as they have stated to this House, to build up towns on the American and Canadian side of the rapids in the St. Lawrence. I happen to know that four or five months ago engineers came from New York to Ottawa to see what arrangements could be made for the securing of power in this vicinity, because they were not absolutely certain whether this thing would go through or not, and these engineers made the statement that the power could be transmitted from the Long Sault to the state of New York commercially. When you remember that from 600,000 to 800,000 horse-power can be developed there, look at what it would mean to them if they could export that, power to New York city. Does any one believe for a moment that if that dam were built and if from 300,000 to 600,000 horse-power were developed now, and we could not use it (as we could not at the present time) that that power would not be sent to the United States. And does any one believe for a moment that if that power were sent into the United States we would ever get it back. At Niagara, in proportion to the water on each side of the boundary, the Americans get double as much power as they are entitled to. For ten years the town of Fort Frances has been engaged in lawsuits with this American company which owns the franchise. One of the chief promoters of the St. Lawrence power stated in the city of Montreal that they had to have it and they were going to have it, and that when the power was developed they would give the Canadians 90 days in which to take the power, and if they did not take it then it would be sold in the United States. Well, I think he spoke a little too soon; I believe the people of Canada realize or are beginning to realize something of the value of that power and of their rights in the matter, and that they will not think of allowing any company, Canadian or American, more especially a foreign company, to dam the St. Lawrence right at the point where it becomes a Canadian river altogether. The St. Lawrence is one of the greatest rivers on the earth; it is a canal extending 1,000 miles right into the heart of the country, and if we allow that river to be dammed we do not know what we may be doing to impede navigation. One of the
best engineers in Canada told me that no man could tell at the present time what the effect of such a dam would be. He told me that some 50 years ago there was a small dam 12 feet high on the Mississippi near Almonte, and an ice jam raised the water 40 feet, with the result that the dam went out and every dam and every mill between that and the Ottawa river was swept away. If the same thing should occur on the river St. Lawrence the result might be appalling. But leaving all that aside it is too big a matter to allow any American company to control. I am no believer in government ownership in most cases, but this is a case where we have an international river where complications are apt to arise, and if the time ever comes- the time has not come yet and it will not come for a good while-when the waterpower on that river should be developed in the interests of Canada it ought to be a matter for the Dominion and American governments to engage in themselves and not transfer the doing of it to any company of American speculators. There has been a great deal of time spent in discussing this Bill, but the time has been well spent, and not a minute of it has been wasted. I think now that the government will realize how inadvisable it would be for them in the near future to approve of plans for damming the St. Lawrence. After what I have heard in discussing this matter with prominent men, I believe that no government would last a month that would allow the great St. Lawrence river to be dammed and controlled by an American company of speculators.


Samuel Hughes: I have to congratulate the government, on its splendid attendance to-night. The Minister of Customs is absent, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is unfortunately absent, but every other Minister of the Crown is in his place to-night, I presume in the interest of this Bill. This shows the result of the opposition which was engendered against this Bill in the Private Bills Committee led by the members from Grenville and Dundas, and the member for North Ontario.


Wilfrid Laurier: And the member for Victoria.


Samuel Hughes: I have not the honour of being a member of the Private Bills Committee, or otherwise I certainly would be in the swim.


John Dowsley Reid: I was not a member of that committee either, and they tried to shut me off, but they could not do it.


Samuel Hughes: The Prime Minister is
just commencing to realize the importance of this Bill, and I am satisfied that if he postponed it for a week he would get more
62G3

light on it. Will the First Minister consent to that?


Wilfrid Laurier: Is the hon. gentleman not disposed to accept the amendment of the leader of the opposition?
satisfied that the members of the opposition who fought this measure when it was last before this House are deserving of the thanks of the country for the work they did at that time. This article is headed, ' Deceiving the Public,' and says:


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, there aTe other amendments.


Samuel Hughes: It was admitted by the Minister of Public Works on the 14th of March, that the St. Lawrence Power Company and the St. Lawrence Transmission Company, are one and the same. The two of them are owned and controlled by the Long Sault Construction Company. I believe that if we pass this innocent looking Transmission Bill we will be passing a very dangerous measure to the welfare of Canada. This company has not the power to expropriate under the Bill of 1901, and that is what they want now, and that would make them masters of the situation. The danger of damming the St. Lawrence cannot be overestimated. I saw some gentlemen on the government side, who are more accustomed to windmills than to waterpower machines, smiling when the hon. member for Assinaboia spoke of the danger that the damming of the St. Lawrence would cause by the jamming of ice. Ice jams on the St. Lawrence have sometimes risen forty or fifty feet, and have cut off trees two feet thick, and when the jam has broken a great deal of damage has been done. We must consider the nature of the country. The Ottawa and New York railway bridge has gone down twice owing to defective foundations. There are veins of quicksand in the river. Only last fall the bridge just above Cornwall tumbled down. The proposed dam would , be about four miles above Cornwall. The lowest estimate of its height is from forty-seven to forty-eight feet, and the general opinion is that it is proposed to make it fifty-six feet high Let it extend from Barnard's island to the Long Sault island, and there is no telling what injury would result. Even if there should be no ice jam, the top of the dam would be nine feet higher than the Cornwall station, over forty feet higher than the city of Cornwall, and fifty feet higher than the- banks of the river at Cornwall. Then, in case an ice jam occurred, and the ice piled up thirty or forty feet, the valley of the river would be flooded, causing a great deal of damage. If the dam should break, as other dams have done, it is impossible to tell what extent of damage would be the result. I wish to refer to an article which I find in the Brockville Evening * Recorder,' of March 24. I do not know what the object of the Minister of Railways and Canals was in publishing this article in his paper unless it was to draw a red herring over the trail. I am' Mr. HUGHES.
AVliether the object is to deceive the public or not, the result of the objection made to allowing Brockville to be reached by a transmission line apparently has had that effect.
Undoubtedly the object of the editor of this paper is to deceivfe the people of Brockville as to the real issue. The article goes on:


Why R.   L.@: Borden, leader of the opposition at Ottawa, and practically every man behind him, should join in the clamour to deprive this section of Ontario, and particularly Brockville, of the first opportunity it has had of getting cheap power is something no one can understand. Personally, Mr. Borden knows absolutely nothing of the situation, and has not apparently taken any pains to inform himself as to what the conditions are, for if he really knew, one cannot think he would have taken the position he did in trying even to keep Brockville from getting a transmission line.
Compare that paragraph with the statement made by the First Minister to-night that the opposition were justified and have done the country a good service in pointing out the iniquity of this power company Act of 1901, and the iniquity of this Bill as presented in its early stages. Who was preventing Brockville from getting electrical power? Nearer to Brockville than the Long Sault rapids are magnificent water-powers available for less money than this company will sell power to Brockville foT. All the water-powers around Ottawas are nearer to Brockville than the Long Sault rapids, a fact of which the editor of this paper is perhaps not aware: and we have the evidence presented to-night by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) that the companies along the St. Lawrence river have again and again offered Brockville and Prescott a thousand hoTse-power of water-power which they were seeking. This article goes on to say:
No one is surprised at Hon. Adam Beck using his influence in preventing any municipality in Ontario getting power except through the Hydro-Electric, as he has a direct personal interest in keeping all and sundry beneath his thumb and within his jurisdiction.
I am not here to defend the HydroElectric Power Commission of the province of Ontario; but I want to say that if that commission were seeking the authority that the St. Lawrence Power Company and the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company are seeking, I would oppose it as determinedly as I am doing here. We want to preserve the St. Lawrence river free to

the navigation of the world. Further on this article says:
The damming of the St. Lawrence is a very large project, and one of not only national but international importance, and the discussion of it should be approached with the utmost seriousness, but the granting of a charter for a transmission line is altogether a different proposition, and the attempt to hold it. up for fear it was giving some rights to dam the St. Lawrence is altogether unwarranted.
Yet we have the hon. member for West Lambton, the father or god-father of this Bill, and the First Minister presenting an amendment to the Bill, which practically admits that the two companies are. one and are working hand in hand. The First Minister has admitted that the St. Lawrence Power Company had authority to dam the St. Lawrence river provided they got an order in council, and by the amendment of that Bill, the hon. member for West Lambton admits that the two Bills are one and the same.
The big project of harnessing the Soo will no doubt be discussed in due time and in the proper place when parliament, as promised by Sir Wilfrid, will have full opportunity of dealing with it.
That is in the atmosphere, is it, that the St.. Lawrence river is to be dammed? That is one of the future considerations that is evidently up the sleeve of certain hon. gentlemen on the other side. The Minister of Railways and Canals frankly tells us that that is the project. I presume a marked copy of this paper was sent to the Long Sault Construction Company, to assure them that if they are thrown down on the. present occasion, they will have to make a few concessions, owing to this iniquitous opposition in the House of Commons. Why, all you have to do, gentlemen, is to trust us in the future, this is only the beginning of justice, and we will see that you get your rewards if you just keep quiet and wait a little while longer.
What the people of this vicinity want just uow is a transmission line over which they can get power from some source.
Why this sudden interest in the transmission line? When did we ever hear the Minister of Railways and Canals becoming interested in transmission lines until the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company came along? Why did not the men of Brockville harness the Chats rapids, or some of those Ottawa powers, and have a transmission line run to Brockville? Ha shows a very unique interest in this St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company s Bill.
There is a power development at Iroquois under Dominion control; there is power to be developed at Waddington, N.Y., which has for many years been on the tapis. There is also power at Massena. But the attitude of the opposition at Ottawa, and of Mr. Beck at Toronto, is that we must not he allowed to have a line over which we could use it in case power can he got from any of these.
I stand here to state that that is not the attitude of the opposition at Ottawa. Our attitude is that any proper transmission scheme that is presented to this House will have the entire support of every member of the opposition. But when a scheme come along that is admitted by the Minister of Public Works, admitted by the First Minister, and admitted by 'the promoter of the Bill in his amendment, to be hand and glove with the Bill to dam the_ St. Lawrence, when a scheme like that is brought into this House, then it is the duty of every member of the opposition, and of every honest man on the government side, to oppose it.
In addition there is some surplus power to he developed at the present works at Cornwall that might be obtained.
How cleverly the attempt is made to conceal the real object of the Bill! They are telling the people of Brockville: 'Here we are at Ottawa, sitting up nights, five ministers of the Crown sitting up to daylight, pushing through a private Bill in order to give the poor people of Brockville some electric power, and the terrible opposition, led by this terrible man, Mr. Borden, are trying to prevent the people of Brockville from getting what they want.' They pretend that they can get power from Iroquois, when the whole cunningly devised scheme is to give to this St. Lawrence Power Company "the one great privilege they seek, namely, power to expropriate property for their transmission line, and once they get that, they can go wherever they choose. And here let me point out to the hon. member for West Lambton, what his statement says:
Yor shall the company hereby incorporated he authorized to transmit power generated by the St. Lawrence Power Company other than the power generated by and in connection with the works already constructed by the said St. Lawrence Power Company.
But there is no provision to prevent them transmitting power generated by the Long Sault Construction Company, and that is the company which owns all these works. So that even if the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton were carried, I maintain that this company could still go on, unless it were harnessed up by the amendment of the leader of the opposition, in other words, unless we practically amended the Act of 1901 by forbidding that a dam should ever be constructed without another Bill passing through parliament for that purpose. True, the amendment- is innocently worded, but there has been so i much clever, technical and legal Scheming 1 and quibbling in connection with this mat-

ter, that we axe justified in looking_ at it from every point of view, and I maintain that if this amendment goes through, while extra electricity from the St. Lawrence Power Co. might not be passed over this transmission company's line, there is not a word in that Act to prevent power from the Long Sault Construction Company being passed over that line. Therefore, unless the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition should be put into shape so as practically to cancel the power given in 1901 to dam the St. Lawrence, there is nothing to prevent the whole iniquity still being carried out to the letter. Therefore, I would again urge on the First- Minister the advisability of letting this thing stand over for a week, until we can look into it and get to the bottom of the matter, now that both sides of the House and the country are thoroughly aroused to the tremendous steal that is attempted to be perpetrated here in the name of development along the St. Lawrence river. Then this article goes on to say:
But Mr. Borden and Mr. Beck say 'No, wo must have no transmission line to get power from any of these, for fear in the future the granting of this charter might have some influence on the proposition to dam the St. Lawrence.' It is all very well for Mr. Beck (who is using the whole financial backing of Ontario, to give the people in Toronto and west power) to he quite contented with himself, hut his attitude is grossly unfair to the people of the eastern part of Ontario. He nas never made any serious effort to giv* them power; he has no power to give them. If lie did (and he is too busy anyway, attending to western Ontario) he has asked nothing in the estimates this year to provide power in the east, and his talk just now is merely a bluff, as it was before, in order to keep everybody else out of this territory until such times as it pleases him to come down this way. In the meantime Brockville -and her sister towns are losing the opportunity of getting industries that might come this way if we could get the power, and they are also having a hard time holding the industries they have.
All that under the administration of the First Minister, and of the Minister of Railways and Canals. Where are these industries going if they are now having -a hard time? That is a new aspect in which to regard too rosy ia picture of the success of these towns that was painted for >us.
Granting a charter to the transmission line as asked for does not give anybody any further power than they now enjoy.
Well, that is contradicted b,y the First Minister himself^ and by the proposed amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton, as well as by arguments put up on this side of the House.
It does not extend the rights of anybody, but it merely gives the people of this part of Ontario a chance of going about hunting for power in a practical way. If this line is con-


Samuel Hughes: structed we will be able to say to anybody who has power, ' Sell us power, and there is a company who has the right to transmit it.' If the power cannot he obtained that will be the misfortune of Brockville and other towns; but if it can be obtained, why should the people he deprived of that which could be of such benefit to them, merely on account of selfishness or other reasons not obvious to the ordinary individual.
We find, not only in this paper, but in other papers, and on the part of other persons, an attempt made to blind the public to the real issues in the case. We might as well come down to the fact that the St. Lawrence Power Company's Bill was smuggled through this parliament-schemed through. Some person behind it knew all about it. Of course, every member of par liament who was here at that time, is indirectly responsible. But somebody was behind the scheme. I exonerate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) because he was not then a member of this House But though the scheme was smuggled through, it was inoperative to a certain extent, because the company had not power-of expropriation. Under this Bill, as it was introduced, tremendous powers were to be given to these parties. And, in spite of all the amendments, the Bill is evidently dangerous, and opportunity should be given for the elimination of the danger. We require time to consider this and to get the best legal talent of this country to consider it. The Prime Minister may or may not be aware that some gentlemen eminent at the bar of the province of Quebec, have considered this Bill. It was an eminent lawyer of Montreal, I believe, who first pointed out that under the Act of 1901, the company had power to dam the St. Lawrence. The Minister of Public Works endeavoured to conceal that the other evening, but the Prime Minister came out frankly and declared that the company had this power. Now, we have made progress with this Bill. The First Minister will admit that we have made progress by allowing this Bill to stand over after fighting it a whole day. Let me suggest to the Prime Minister that he will make progress by holding it over for another week. Let us look into the matter.


Mr. BRODER.: I think this is a question that ought to be thoroughly looked into before any definite action is taken. I was glad to hear the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) make the statements he did with regard to his opinion and his probable action as to any future attempt to dam the St. Lawrence river. A good deal was said about the great necessity of bringing power to the town of Brockville. I know of my own knowledge, that the people of the town of Brockville, have been approached within the last twelve months with a very reasonable proposition for the

supply of power and they were not, apparently, very anxious to afford a market to this power developed at the town of Iroquois. Mr. Beach, of Iroquois, has developed on the canal there, under lease from the federal government, 500 horse-power, and has foundations in for three more units which would make a full development of 2,000 horse-power. That is available to Brockville, and the point at which it is developed is 33 miles nearer to Broek-ville than the proposed electrical power at Cornwall, and which they are so anxious to get. In other words, it would require a transmission line of only 26 miles to deliver this power in Brockville, and that could be built for about $16,000. I know that Mr. Beach offered power within the last two months,

I do not say to Brockville at $16 per horse-power for 24 hours. That is pretty cheap power. It will be equal to $8 for 12-hour horse-power.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What would it cost in Brockville?


Andrew Broder: The transmission line would cost somewhere about $15,000. So, this great cry about Brockville wanting a transmission line to get power does not seem so important. I understand there is not a horse-power available at Cornwall without further development, but that it is possible, at Mille Roches, to put in more units and develop more power at once. 1 believe they have that right, subject to federal authority. They aTe not allowed to increase the current in the canal to affect navigation, but I understand that at the present time they have not another horsepower to spare. Within the last year and a half the president wrote to the people applying for power that he had not a horsepower to spare. I am giving here what I understand to be facts, but I do not know them of my own personal knowledge. I would suggest, as this question has resolved itself into a legal question-for it is a question as to the effect of this Bill coupled with the other Bill-the Prime Minister should allow time for further consideration. I do not have the privilege of suggesting to him many things, but I would suggest to him now that this matter should be referred to a special committee of legal gentlemen who wrould settle on the effect of this Bill coupled with the other. There are things in this Bill which I would be obliged to object to. For instance, they propose to get the right of way by securing easements. That is, they will go to a farmer and get a few square feet to erect a tower. But this means ingress and egress.


Mr. CONMEE.: Is not that what the Ontario Hydro-Electric is doing?


James Conmee: No, I do not.


Andrew Broder: I am glad to hear that.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: They have to get the fee simple.	.


Andrew Broder: That does not necessarily follow. It may be said that, if any damage is done, the owner can collect damages. But is an ordinary farmer to sue a twenty million dollar company? No, it would be better for him to suffer injury. We know that lawsuits have been carried on in the city of Montreal to define the rights of thet company in this very question. This is a point that should be properly guarded. I do not think that a company supposed to represent millions of money should get these rights to deal with private interests, to ride over the people rough-shod, and leave the ordinary man to fight for his rights against such odds. Another thing: take these towns along the front, Iroquois, Morrisburg, Cornwall and others, and they all get water out of the rapids of that river. Perhaps the best water in this country is found in these towns. But the moment you dam that river you destroy the right that these people


James Conmee: There is no provision in this Bill for a dam.


Andrew Broder: My hon. friend had a good deal of experience in damming the water or proposing to dam the, water. The point is that they have that power under another Bill and the two Bills coupled together give them all they want unless we are very careful as to the provisions in this Bill. It may not be generally known that the water shed between'the St. Lawrence and Ottawa rivers which are about 60i miles apart is only three miles from the St. Lawrence in my locality. Within three miles of Morrisburg, you will find the watershed and from that point northward the waters come down to the Ottawa river. It is not a high water shed and if the water should be raised by an ice jam for instance over that water shed it would have to sweep clear through to the Ottawa in order to find an outlet. These are questions that the ordinary man should not be called upon to settle. People competent to know what they mean should look into these things before' powers are given to any company that would in the least have, the effect of damming the St. Lawrence. II would suggst that this Bill be referred to a committee of that sort to settle on thej legal effect of these two Bills taken to4 gether. There is an apprehension in the: minds of many members and of the people! that some risk is involved in permitting' this legislation.


Andrew Broder: The hon. member objects to that with them, yet he approves it in this case.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: I think every objection that has been raised here was Taised, in the Private Bills Committee. True as

the Bill was first framed it asked comprehensive expropriation powers. But the promoters said all they wanted was a transmission line and the Bill came to the House in its present form, having: nothing' to do with the damming of the St. Lawrence river, but it was contended that it! was adding to the powers granted by the, Bill of 1901, it was supplementary to that Bill. There were many objections to the>
Bill of 1901, and it has been truly said, that that Bill would not pass the committee as it ' stands to-day.' Many grave objections to it were raised and consequently the position of members on this side was that no power should be added to the powers granted by the Bill of 1901. Then the position of the government should be to negotiate with the company if they come here asking additional powers and privileges; the government should ask them to forego some of the rights contained in the Bill of 1901 which undoubtedly gives the company the right to dam the St. Lawrence to the centre of the international stream. If that is an improper power to confer on the company, would it not be reasonable for the government to say: If you want a transmission line with comprehensive powers of expropriation forego that right in the Bill of 1901. It is an improper power to confer on any company. It would be reasonable for the government to say to the company if they want additional powers and Drivileges, under the Transmission Bill that they should submit their rates under the Act of 1901 to the control of the railway board, there being now no control over the rates of the St. Lawrence- Power Company under their Act of 1901. No one contends that the Bill as brought to the House conferred any power of damming the St. Lawrence. It was in effect a transmission line, but; added to that and gave additional powers to the Act of 1901, and I cannot see how the government can refuse to assume responsibility for this Transmission Bill. The Minister of Railways came to the Private Bills Committee. It is true he tried to divest himself of his official character as a minister and to say he spoke as a private member, he urged the committee to pass the Transmission Bill as it was presented. The Minister of Agriculture at the next sitting lent the support of his influence and presence to the Bill without any serious objection to it in its original form. Any objections to the Bill in the Private Bills Committee emanated from this side. When the Bill came in, in an amended form before the House and was discussed during the all-night session we had the spectacle of four or five ministers sitting all night and giving countenance and support to the Bill. There are ten ministers of the Crown here now, and it is 11 o'clock in the evening. They are sitting here attempting to Mr. S. SHARPE.
carry, or I might say force a private Bill through although several members on this side have asked that it stand for a week tor further consideration. Very innocent amendments suggested during the all-night session were rejected in a haughty spirit, but we find a different spirit in gentlemen opposite; from the promoter to the premier, and the Finance Minister they all seem in a submissive spirit. I submit that the change of attitude is atogether remarkable when you consider how they refused absolutely any amendment that might be suggested during the all-night session. I think they have had their ears to the ground and have found public sentiment to be altogether opposed to this Bill. As the saying is the coon came down, they have had to surrender to the demands of public opinion and make the Bill as innocent as they can. The Bill cannot possibly be discussed intelligently without a thorough discussion of the amendment offered by the leader of the opposition, the amendment of the sponsor of the Bill and three additional amendments. True the sting has been taken out of the Bill because the plans must be submitted not to the Governor in Council, but to this parliament, giving an assurance of publicity, That takes a good deal of the sting out of it, because when the plans are submitted to this House the public will know what is going on, and we will understand what the government purposes doing under the Act of 1901, But there are many objectionable features to the Bill besides the objection which has been raised by my hon. friend the leader ot the opposition. There are wide powers of expropriation. They are permitted to expropriate the property of the province without the consent of the province, and they are permitted to enter into a municipality without the consent, of the municipality. We had a Bill discussed last session known as the Ontario-Michigan Power Bill. One clause that was suggested, and the suggestion was adopted by the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), was that no transmission line should be run through any municipality without the consent of the municipality expressed by by-law. That was a reasonable amendment. Had it not been a reasonable amendment it would not have been put into the Ontario-Michigan Power Bill last session. The opposition desires that such an amendment should be incorporated in this Bill. This Bill is to exploit certain natural resources of the country. Why should that company be allowed, without the consent of the municipality, to enter into that municipality, and why should they have the powers of expropriation granted under the Railway Act? Why should such expropriation powers be given to this private company, operating for private gain and

for the purpose of paying dividends? Why should this company*have the power to go into the city of Montreal, expropriate private property, and go upon the streets of the city without the consent of the municipality? True, there have been other objections raised. The fact that it is duplicating the system which is proposed to be inaugurated by the Hydro-Electric Commission is a great objection. Everybody knows that this is only duplicating the work of the Hydro-Electric Commission. I do not desire to argue that phase of the question particularly, but every person knows that the users of electricity will have to pay for two lines. If this private company erect a transmission line the people will have to pay dividends upon the cost of construction, and the water that may be injected into the stock. Under this system the Hydro-Electric Commission, as soon as these municipalities are prepared to co-operate, will erect transmission lines, and develop power for the benefit of the municipalities at cost. Why should the government encourage a transmission line that will duplicate the system of the Hydro-Electric Commission, doubling the expense of the work of the commission, and adding to the burden of the people in the municipalities through which these lines will pass? Why should they hamper and interfere with the policy which has been adopted by the unanimous consent of the people of Ontario, and playing into the hands of a private company as they are doing here? What the members on this side of the House object to particularly is the fact that by adopting this Bill we are giving additional powers to the St. Lawrence Power Company that already possess powers that they should not have. Before you grant additional powers to a transmission line company it would be well to negotiate with the St. Lawrence Power Company, and induce them to forego some of the powers which they obtained clandestinely in 1901. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that the Bill of 1901 should have passed this House without discussion. Some extraordinary influence must have been at work. It must have passed this House when most of the members were absent. I submit that when that company got such extraordinary powers, as those which are set- out in the Act of 1901, now is the time, when they come here as suppliants for further favours, for the government to negotiate with them, and get them to forego some of their privileges and powers. There are other phases of this proposition that I desire to discuss, but I presume that the government are not going to have another all-night session in connection with this Bill. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works wdiat interests outside of the St. Lawrence Power
Company have requested the granting of these pow'ers, and the ratification of the plans of that company? Have any public bodies sought to have the St. Lawrence dammed, or asked that further powers. and privileges be conferred upon the St. Lawrence Power Company? I understand that the Toronto and Montreal boards of trade, the Marine Association, the navigation interests, the riparian owners, the municipalities, and in fact every public interest have publicly declared against this plan of the St. Lawrence Power Company, and that the only persons seeking these powers are those financially interested in the undertaking. I understand that the civil engineers of Montreal were asked by the International Waterways Commission to suggest the name of an independent engineer to report upon this project, that they met, pronounced against the project, and refused to suggest the name of an engineer to report upon it. It was so much against the public interest that they refused to suggest the name of an engineer to give an independent report upon the project. If all of these interests are so strenuously opposed to the whole proposition why are we being obliged to sit through all night sessions trying to force this Bill through? If there is not some ulterior purpose behind it what is the object of delaying other private legislation? Other private Bills are important. We are holding other private legislation back for the benefit of this company. In addition I desire to point out that there are private members who have Bills on the Order Paper. Every day has been taken by the government. These private Bills are given precedence over public legislation that is introduced by indiv-ual members in the public interest. The public interest is being sacrificed in the interest of private legislation, and the government are attempting to exploit the assets of the provinces for the benefit of a few promoters who come over from the United States. In a return brought down to the House two or three years ago there were contained several engineers' reports which united in condemnation of this whole project. I say that the project is one which should not be countenanced, which should not receive the assent of this Housq, and that we should not add to the powers, and privileges granted this company under the Act of 1901.


Wilfrid Laurier: I stated earlier in the evening that I could not understand what was the object of the opposition to this Bill. I think that I now understand it. I think that the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) has let the cat'out of the bag. I see now plainly that the opposition to this Bill is because it is supposed that this project is

going to duplicate the lines of the HydroElectric- Commission.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That is one of the objections.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that an unworthy object? What has been the object of the Hydro-Electric Commission? Has it not been the duplication of other lines? Was it not to give cheap power to the people of the province? Was that not one of the reasons advanced when this HydroElectric Commission was organized? Was it not to provide competing lines, to give the people of Ontario the possibility of having cheaper power, to duplicate lines, and to give the people the .choice of not only buying their electrical energy from one company, but from several? If the people of Brockville and of eastern Ontario have that same privilege brought to their doors, if they can procure their power not only from the Hydro-Electric Commission, but also from this new company, where is the harm? This very proposition should receive the commendation and support of my hon. friends opposite. But, I understand their objection. There they are all arrayed against it because they do not want the people of Brockville, or the people along the St. Lawrence to have the privilege of getting their electrical energy from two sources.


Samuel Hughes: Will the right hon. the First Minister be good enough to tell the House where he got that data?


Wilfrid Laurier: I got that data from the speech of the hon. member for North Ontario. That is what he said a moment ago. He said that he objected to this company because it was going to duplicate the line of the Hydro-Electric Commission. These were the words of the member for North Ontario. I understand now the reason of the opposition to this Bill. I have asked myself what was the object, now I know it: it is to get a monopoly for the Hydro-Electric Commission. I understand it all now. Well, we shall not have to sit all night to-night, and I am delighted, indeed, that the people of the province of Ontario will now know what was the object of sitting all night the other night, and what is the object of the opposition we have had offered to the Bill to-day. I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


Samuel Hughes: 
Wilfrid Laurier: Tuesday, April 5, 1910.