1910-03-14

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :
Grey :
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending on the 31st March, 1910, and in accordance with the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867. The Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
. Government House,
Ottawa, 14th March, 1910.
Mr. FIELDING moved that His Excellency's message, together with the estimates, be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Motion was agreed to.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 154) respecting the Northern Empire Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. White.
Bill (No. 162) for the relief of Alexander Augustus Barthelmes.-Mr. W. M. Martin.
Bill (No. 160) respecting the Brockville, Ottawa and St. Lawrence Railway Company.-Mr. W. M. Martin.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would like to inquire of the Prime Minister whether or not any investigation has been made into the matter I mentioned on Friday. I brought to the attention of the right hon. gentleman, and the chairman of the committee a certain error in the report of the
committee, and should like to know what has been done with the matter.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I found that Mr. Geoffrion had left for Montreal on Friday immediately after my hon. friend brought the matter up. I expect him during the day, and will call his attention to it.



TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire whether there have been any negotiations with the members of the tariff commission of the United States, and whether the government proposes to make any statement regarding the position of the matter.


Mr. FIELDING.: There have been negotiations between members of the cabinet, and the gentlemen delegated to come to Ottawa by the President of the United States, but these negotiations were necessarily confidential, and I do not think they have advanced to a point which would justify my making any statement. No doubt at a later stage the importance of this matter will demand some explanation.


Mr. SPROULE.: How is it we have explanations given to the world from Washington, and published in the press?


William Stevens Fielding: Both in the United States and Canada we have a very enterprising and sometimes very imaginative press.



SAULT STE. MARIE DRY-DOCKS.

Mr. BOYCE.: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether the application for a subsidy to the Sault Ste. Marie dry-docks has been passed upon yet?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: It has not.



ADJUDICATION OF CLAIMS TREATY.

Arthur Cyril Boyce: Can the right hon. gentleman give the information I asked the other day with regard to the ratification of a convention, or treaty with the - United States?


Wilfrid Laurier: It has not been ratified.



TRADE REPRESENTATIVES TO GERMANY.

Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Has the government appointed trade representatives to Germany, or does it intend doing so?


William Stevens Fielding: No recent appointments have been made. My recollection is that we have no representative in Germany. The matter will no doubt engage the attention of the Minister of Trade and

Commerce, under whose department that branch of the service falls.



MILITARY REVIEW AT PETAWAWA.

Mr. GERALD V. WHITE.: On the 24th February last I brought to the attention of the House an article which appeared in the Ottava 'Journal' of February 23, regarding the military review at Petawawa under Sir John French. I am glad tp see the Minister of Militia in his seat to-day, and I would like to ask him if that report is correct. I would also like to draw attention to an article in the ' Journal ' of March 8, as follows:
London, March 8.
In the House of Commons to-day it was announced that Sir John French would go to Canada this summer to advise on organization of militia forces.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I am not aware that there is to be any such assemblage of troops at Petawawa during the summer, but there will probably be a larger number there than last year. So far as the visit of Sir John French is concerned, I understand that it is expected he will visit Canada unofficially, or semi-officially, during the present year with the view of seeing as much as he can of the Canadian militia. And I may add that every facility will be afforded him to meet as many officers, and see as much of the militia in camp, and otherwise, as possible, as we are extremely glad to have such a distinguished officer visit this country: and I think it will be in the interests of the militia that we should give him every possible opportunity to see our Can-dian militia.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 52) to incorporate the Nelson River Railway Company.-Mr. Rutan.
Mr. BRADBURY.: This Bill was under discussion on Friday night, and there seemed to be an understanding that it will be allowed to stand over until other Bills of a similar nature would come before the House. This Bill affects two of the great water-powers at the head of Lake Winnipeg, and is very similar to the International Waterways Bill, and the Rainy River Railway Bill, and I requested that it should stand until the government formulated some policy regarding the disposition of these great water-powers.


William Pugsley: My hon. colleague the Minister of Railways is obliged to be absent to-day, but he desired me to say to the committee that he saw no reason whatever why this Bill should stand over. He sailed my attention to the fact that it Mr. FIELDING.
gives no authority whtever to expropriate any water-powers, and gives no control whatever over any water-powers, but simply provides that the moneys of the company may be invested in the acquisition of water-powers, and the development of electricity for the purpose of operating their railways. Section 13, which deals with that subject provides:
In connection with the business and purposes of the undertaking, and subject to provisions of section 247 of the Railway Act, the company may acquire water-powers but not by expropriation.
This is just the same as if the Governor in Council were to incorporate a company by letters patent giving power to develop but no authority whatever to expropriate. There are no compulsory rights, and the only effect of the provision is that it authorizes the company to invest its funds in the development of electric power. The committee will also remember that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has already stated the policy of the government regarding water-powers, so that if that be at all material to the consideration of this Bill we have such a declaration. So, if the question were at all material to the consideration of this Bill, we have that declaration of policy on the part of the Minister of the Interior. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) is entirely mistaken aa to there being any understanding that the Bill is to stand over. Had there been such an understanding, I am sure the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) would have informed me of it, and asked me tQ inform the committee. On the contrary, he said that he saw no reason why the Bill, as amended and reported by the committee, and now recommended by the committee, should not pass.


George Henry Bradbury: During the discussion of this Bill a few evenings ago-and, I think, of another Bill-the minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) announced that the government had a wrell-defined policy with regard to these water-powers. As I understood the Minister of the Interior, he said that the regulations of the government applied to these two water-powers at the head of Lake Winnipeg. But, on looking over the regulations, I find that they apply to water-powers within any of the provinces. But the water-powers affected under these Bills are outside of any province. I take it, therefore, there is no regulation covering them. That is one reason the government should hold this Bill until the regulations are extended so as to cover these water-powers also. I think that on Friday evening last, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) said very clearly that this Bill was to stand over. I may have misunderstood his attitude. I do not wish to block the Bill or block any Bill; but, this railway
MARCH 14, 19iu
charter, as it is called, seeks powers to start from some point at the mouth of the Saskatchewan or at the mouth of the Nelson rivers-points fully 100 miles apart-making it evident that the scheme is immature. The committee never was in possession of proper information to warrant them in passing the Bill, according to my opinion. I took very strong ground in committee on that point. I think it would be a mistake, in advance of the formulation of some policy by the government, to regulate these water-powers outside of the province, to proceed with this Bill. If the regulations gave the Minister of the Interior authority to deal with water-powers outside of the provinces as they do with water-powers inside the provinces, that might remove some of the objections. But I submit that the regulations as they exist do not give that power, and therefore the Bill ought to stand over.


Mr. LENNOX.: I have spoken two or three times on this question, and I propose now to let this matter rest with the government. They can take the responsibility of their action. This Bill was up on Tuesday evening, and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) decided to let it stand over until we had a discussion of another Bill which is coming up in the Railway Committee. It stood until last Friday evening. On that occasion, I called the attention of the Minister of Railways to the fact that the other Bill had not been reached in the meantime, and suggested that it would be advisable not to spend the hour for private Bills in a useless discussion of this Bill. The minister acquiesced in that, and was prepared to let it stand over. Unfortunately, the promoter of the Bill thought it necessary to discuss the Bill and other gentlemen joined in tire discussion, and so the hour was wasted. It was distinctly understood that we should delay this Bill until the other Bill to which I have referred had been taken up in the Railway Committee; and I think it was pretty clearly understood that the Minister of Railways or the government would announce some definite general policy as regards dealing with these waterways. It comes up now as a comparatively new question. Until recently, we have had no problems of this kind. But, so anxious are parties who wish to enrich themselves by securing these rights, that, even after Bills were advertised and introduced, attempts were made to amend them so as to give the promoters water-power rights. What I am endeavouring to impress upon the Minister of Railways is that the country should have some return from these franchises belonging to the country, that we should not give them to private parties and allow those parties to have the whole proceeds-preferably, that the province
should have the profits, but that either the province or the Dominion should have some revenue from these great water-powers. I have no desire whatever to delay this Bill. I believe it will go through. But I have every desire that the progress of the Bill should be stayed until other^ Bills of the same nature are brought into the House, and that then we shall have a clear, definite policy from those who are responsible for the management of our national resources. It is a peculiar thing: first I succeed in staying the Rainy River Bill during the absence of the Minister of Railways from the committee. Until this moment, we have had no intimation that the Minister of Railways was disposed to let the present Bill go through until the other Bill to which I have referred was reached. Until this moment, on the contrary, we had as clear an intimation as possible that the minister would acquiesce in the suggestion of delay until the other Bill came before the House, so that we could have one policy applying to all such Bills. That seems a reasonable proposition. Thus, we have this extraordinary position-I think an undesirable position- that the first day the Minister of Railways is absent this matter is to be shoved through. However, it is for the government to say whether they want to have this gone on with or not. If they have decided to push it through, let them do so, so far as I am concerned. I have done what I could to serve the public interest in this matter by having the government come down and declare some policy on which they proposed to protect the public interest in this very important matter. For these waterways are more valuable than coal. This is the propelling power of the future; it is the manufacturing power of the future; and, if the government are prepared to give to these franchises without investigating them and allow railway companies-so-called railway companies-under the guise of building a railway to develop these water-powers, and dispose of the surplus energy, well and good; for the present let it be so. But I venture to think that thoughtful people will not regard it as wise in the public interest. There is no use in us on this side trying to compel the government to do anything. Speaking for myself, I have done all that I could to urge the government to adopt a wise, general policy in regard to this matter.


Mr. CARVELL.: I am glad to hear the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) take this high stand, because in the absence of an express declaration to this effect, some hon. members on this side might have had the impression that there was some attempt to delay the progress of this Bill. I take it for granted that hon. members who have discussed this matter on three-different occasions have been sincere in

their expressions concerning it. They have been discussing it as though the proposition in this Bill was to give this company the right to go on and expropriate water-powers and use them at their own sweet will. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) knows better than that. He has been following this measure through the Railway Committee. So does myi hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) who has taken an active part in this discussion in the committee. He must know that as this Bill is amended, and as it is now before this committee, all that this company has is the right to legally hold the water-powers if they can get them. They have not the right of expropriation; they have not the right to acquire these water-powers otherwise than as I might acquire them if I went up there to do business. We are simply creating an entity having the legal right to own those properties, or those rights, if they can get them. It seems to me that is as far removed from the position which my hon. friend has been arguing as the North Pole is from the South Pole. All we are doing, if we allow this Bill to pass, is to create an entity which has a right to hold these water-powers if they can succeed in getting them from the proper authority, whether it be from the federal government or from the province of Manitoba after this land comes into the possession of the province of Manitoba. I do not know whether the time is far distant or near at hand when that will take place. We do know, however, that there will have to be a wonderful change in policy on the part of both governments ever since confederation if, when this territory becomes the property of Manitoba, the Manitoba government will have the right to deal with it. But even if they should get that right, and if there should be that change in policy, then all this company will have a right to do is to go to the province of Manitoba and make a satisfactory trade if they can do so; if they cannot, they get nothing. If these rights do not go to the province of Manitoba, then if they have a right to come to this government and make a satisfactory trade if they can. They are simply placed in the position I would be in, or the hon. member for Simcoe would be in, or anybody else who went out there and bought these properties, if they could do so. Now, it is passing strange that my hon. friends so strongly oppose the passage of this Bill and want a declaration of policy on the part of the government as to what they are going to do in the future when applications are made to them to lease or purchase water-powers, when only two weeks ago these hon. gentlemen had no compunctions of conscience in voting for Bill (No. 118) in which section 12 gave Mr CARVELL.
the company the right to operate these water-powers in the province of British Columbia. And perhaps they will say why such a change of sentiment has come over them, evidently, during the last week.


Haughton Lennox: It is a growing time.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, it is a growing time on the part of the hon. member for Simcoe, I think, and of some other hon. gentlemen who have grown so rapidly in their ideas of the preservation of natural resources since Bill (No. 118) passed the House. However, that is a matter for them to answer. But, it seems to me this Bill has been discussed pretty thoroughly, and my hon. friends opposite have kept as far away from the real principle of the Bill as they could. I hope that possibly this reminder may awaken them to the true import of the Bill, and that they will devote their attention for a few moments to the Bill itself, and not to some fanciful grievance which they have conjured up in their own mind. I am satisfied if they take that advice they will not 'see anything wrong in allowing this Bill to pass, and let us proceed to other Bills of as much importance as this.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: We understand the nature of the Bill before the House just as well as the hon. gentleman. He says that the power of expropriation is taken away. What good would the power of expropriation in a Bill be against the Crown? What right would you have to expropriate against the Crown even if the power of expropriation was in it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am assuming now that if it goes into the province of Manitoba, then we would have the right to expropriate.


John Graham Haggart: That would have to be granted in the province just the same. Any way,' it is in the possession of the Crown, apd of the Dominion at the present moment, and no power of expropriation would be worth one cent to the parties that would have it. That is not the contention of my hon. friend. We have no objections to the Bill, we know it only gives to a corporate power the same power as an individual has at present. All we ask is that there should be some declaration of policy by the government in reference to these waterways, the same as there is in every civilized country in the world. In the United States they have regulations by which companies and individuals can obtain possession of them, and, as he says, the same power of expropriation is included in the British Columbia Bill. In British Columbia the sale of water-powers is regulated by statute. All we ask from the Minister of Railways is a simple statement that any individual ot corporation may ap-

proach the government on equal terms for the purpose of possessing the water-powers, and that, above all things, something which is the heritage of the people of this country shall be retained for them, or shall not be parted with without an equivalent. Now there is no use talking about opposition to the Bill on this side of the House. We are not opposing the Bill. We simply say, if you want your Bill, let the government make a pronouncement in reference to it. It seeks, to obtain property which is valuable to the public, in regard to which property there are no regulations nor statutory obligations at all. All we ask from the government is that they will at. least make regulations in reference to these waterways so that a moiety of them shall be retained for the people who own them.


Mr. MILLER.: The hon. gentleman says that members of the opposition are not opposing the Bill. I would like to know what different course they would find it possible to take if they were opposing the Bill. They have delayed its progress now for at least three times. They say they are not opposing the Bill, but apparently I think they are using it as a cudgel to force the government to lay down a policy as to what they shall do in the way of giving water-powers to persons who may apply therefor. But I would like to know what consistency there is in taking the stand they do in refusing to let this Bill go through until the government declares its policy as to the granting of water-powers, when no member _ of the House, who has spoken in opposition to this Bill has pointed out a single section or a single word in the Bill that alienates to any extent one single drop of water or the rignt to use water. Until they can do that, I do not see any consistency in their argument.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think the hon. member's argument is very strong, especially in view of Canadian history. We know how individuals have become possessed of many of these waterways, even from the Crown, without the Crown realizing anything in return. Now if we had a declaration from the government as to what their policy was, if we had regulations by which the public would own what was got out of these water-powers, and upon what terms they wouid be alienated, then we would understand it, and we could provide against any dangers happening in future, similar to those that have happened in the past.
Now, the hon. gentleman who spoke previously (Mr. Carvell) said they cannot get control of this by expropriation. In what other way could they get control? There are many other ways, but one way is that they may get control of it secretly from the government at a low rental, not to the advantage, but to the disadvantage, of the country. The hon. gentleman made reference to the incorporation of the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company. He says that the members of the opposition are not consistent because., they were willing to allow that Bill to pass. The hon. member for North Lanark (Mr. Haggart) gave, to my mind, a very satisfactory answer to that, and that was that the right to get control of water-powers must be according to the law of the province and, therefore, it is plain and open to the world, but to say that there is any comparison between that Bill of the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company and this Bill, is to say what is not justified by the facts. What is the situation there? There are three corporations, they want to have a highway between these corporations, which highway must pass over the water or under it by, tunnel, and they have joined, not for the purpose of private speculation by any means, but for the purpose of accommodating these three great cities. It is true that it was put in the name of private individuals, hut these individuals were satisfactory to these corporations and were acting for them, and they do not desire to go into this undertaking for the purpose of making personal gain for themselves but for the purpose of accommodating these cities. Therefore, the committee went farther than they would have done had they been dealing with private individuals in giving the rights which they did under this Bill, There is no reasonable comparison between the two Bills. But in reference to this other Bill, I have it before me here, and it says that they are to acquire these rights under section 247 of the Railway Act, but they are not to have the right to expropriate. Of course, my hon. friend from Lanark says what is strictly correct, that they cannot expropriate what belongs to the Crown, but they can get it sometimes privately from the Crown for very much less than it is worth. If the government in future would lease all these water-powers at a reasonable rental, it would be a very good policy in the interest of the country. We should lease them and get a return for the country. If it is the federal government that own them, the return would come to the federal treasury; if it is the provincial government, the provincial government would get the rent. That would be a wise policy, and I have wondered for years and years why the government never gave the House any inkling of its desire to conserve what belongs to the people so that they could get the benefit of such water-powers rather than that they should be handed over to enrich private corporations. We want to know what the government intend to do with these water-powers, because almost every week during

the session we have some Bill that seeks to acquire some rights of this kind. We have to view these Bills in such a way as we deem to be proper, because the government have not yet laid down any wise policy or rule to guide us in dealing with these questions. It would save the time of the committee and of this House if they did so, it would as well preserve to the country a beneficial interest in what belongs to the country, and it would put a stop to the practice of giving these water-powers to private individuals without a fair and reasonable return to the country.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), I think, entirely misunderstands the true purport of this Bill. He undertakes to say that there is no inconsistency between the stand which hon. gentlemen opposite took upon the British Columbia Bill and that which they now take upon the present Bill. Why, Sir, possibly he has not read it, but section 12 of the British Columbia Bill takes the power out of the hands of British Columbia and gives to this company the right to expropriate powers anywhere, whether they belong to private individuals, corporations or to the province.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By British Columbia's own consent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not by British Columbia's own consent at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Section 12 is as follows:
For the purposes of its undertaking, and subject to the provisions of section 217 of the Railway Act, the company may acquire and develop water, electric or other power.
And so on. Now, my hon. friend from East Grey ought to know that it was settled that under a decision of the Privy Council in a British Columbia case a corporation created by this parliament with expropriation powers has the absolute right to expropriate from private individuals or from the province.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have no remembrance of any such decision.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Therefore, this Bill which my hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen allowed to go through so easily gives to this corporation the" right to expropriate any water-power in British Columbia no matter to whom it belongs. Then, these hon. gentlemen come and say, as the hon. member for East Grey says, that is not a parallel case with this one. I agree it is not a parallel case; it is a case the iniquity of which is a hundredfold greater than that of the Bill under discussion.


George Henry Bradbury: Admitting that to be so, would the hon. gentleman say that it is right for the House to pass this Bill?
Mr. SPROULE


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know of my hon. friend opposing it. I do not know of any hon. member who opposed it, and I did not hear any opposition to it when it was brought up for the third reading.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I opposed it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did you?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the Burrard Inlet Bill gave that corporation power to expropriate water-powers in any portion of British Columbia. Did he read clause 8 of the Bill, which shows the distance that the corporation intends to go and which extends only a few miles?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is only drawing a herring across the path. It gives this company the right to expropriate water-powers in British Columbia within the purview of its extent. It does not make any difference whether these powers belonged to private individuals or not; the company has the right to expropriate them and use them for the purposes of its undertaking. There are no such rights granted by this Bill at all. No expropriation rights are granted or claimed. The only right to be created is the power to purchase and hold these properties if they can do so. When I am discussing this subject it may not be out of place to say that in my opinion we are spending a lot of time discussing what is only a fetish of the province of Ontario regarding these water-powers. You would think that there never was a water-power on earth until four or five years ago when some gentleman in Toronto discovered such things. There have been water-powers developed all over Canada and all over the world for the last three or four hundred years. Almost every day when anything comes up in this House in which water-powers are mentioned some hon. gentleman gets up and says: You are taking away the inalienable rights of the people; you are taking away the water-powers which belong to the people. I would like to know what earthly good these water-powers are until they are developed. The water has been running away for thousands of years and you never can bring it back, and unless these water-powers are developed the water will continue to run away for thousands of years. I do not agree with the hon. member for East Grey when he says that in this case there should be a great big rental demanded, that these people should pay a large rental before they get these privileges. Take the case of the city of Ottawa. Under the terms of this Bill when the company have acquired water rights they may create electricity, but the rates to be charged for this electricity are to be governed by the Railway Commission. If this company are compelled to pay-I

do not care whether it is $1,000, or $100,000, or $1,000,000 to the federal or local government, whichever may have the right to lease the power to the company-the Railway Commission, in establishing the rates to be charged to the public, must take that into consideration, and the rates will be just that much higher or just as much higher as the rental which the company is compelled to pay bears to the whole amount of the work done. Take the city of Ottawa. The electric company in Ottawa probably pays no rental, I presume it acquired its rights in the old days before the attempt was made to tie up everything in Ontario. Suppose the electric company in Ottawa were compelled to pay $500,000 to the Ontario government, does my hon. friend suppose that the citizens of Ottawa would get electricity at 8 cents a kilowatt hour, the cheapest rate in Canada? People get cheap electricity simply because the company get cheap development. If the company had to pay a high rate the people of Ottawa would pay the scorching, and the price instead of being 8 cents a kilowatt hour would be 9 cents, 10 cents, 11 cents or 12 cents, as it is in many other places. We have heard so much about this doctrine of giving away no rights to water-powers that it is time some one spoke on the other side and showed that this is only a fetish, something not sound in principle and which will, not work out properly when put in practice, which1 will increase rather than diminish the cost of these public utilities to the users. After all, the main object of these public utilities is to give to the consuming public as low rates as possible and not to increase the exchequer of some municipality.


Robert Laird Borden: The argument of my hon. friend would lead to some curious conclusions. The coal in the mines of Nova Scotia is of no value until it is dug out; the timber in the forests of Ontario is of no special value until it is cut-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Can you replace the coal in the mines of Nova Scotia, or the timber in Ontario, as you can water-power?


Robert Laird Borden: You can replace the timber by a proper system of cutting and planting.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In fifty years.


Robert Laird Borden: But surely my hon. friend would not contend that on this account they should be given away without rental or royalty?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is no comparison whatever.


Robert Laird Borden: His argument would lead logically to that conclusion, because he would say that if you gave away the coal without royalty and the timber without rental, people would get them so much the cheaper and in that way the general interests of the country would be well conserved. I do not believe you can carry the argument to that extent in that way. The great difficulty about these water-powers is that there is a tendency in the United States, there may be a tendency in Canada to get them all under one control in different parts of the country; eventually they might come in this country under one gigantic control, and I do not think that would be desirable. The water-power, it is true, is of no use until it is utilized, but the conditions under which it should be utilized must require consideration on the part of the government.
As to the hon. gentleman's remarks in respect to the expropriation of property owned by a provincial government, I looked at the decision which he brought to my attention last year, and I also examined some 18 or 20 other cases in the Privy Council, in the Supreme Court of Canada, and in the Court of Appeal of the province of Ontario, and I would not be quite prepared to accept the conclusion at which he arrived. In the Privy Council Sir Arthur Wilson based his conclusion on two grounds, in the first place on the ground that the property in question was part of the foreshore, and in the second place on the ground to which the hon. gentleman has alluded. If that argument were to be accepted, it would necessarily follow that a provincial government would have the right to expropriate the property of the Crown held in right of Canada; I see no distinction, because every one knows that in the case of the Liquidators of the Maritime Bank of New Brunswick against the Crown, it was held that the executive and the legislature of a province are as supreme and sovereign within the ambit of their jurisdiction as the executive of Canada, and the parliament of Canada are supreme within the ambit of their jurisdicion. As a matter of fact in the case of the Privy Council neither in the argument nor in the judgment, was there cited, a section of the British North America Act, which has a very important bearing on the case. I do not observe that it has been cited anywhere except possibly some years ago in one Ontario case. That is section 117, which provides that:
The several provinces shall retain all their respective public property not otherwise disposed of in this Act, subject to the right of Canada to assume any lands or public property required for fortifications or for the defence of the country.
There is one case expressly provided in which Canada can take the property of a

province, and I would be inclined to think that a very strong argument would be made from that for the right of the province to hold its property absolutely against any invasion by he government or parliament of Canada, except in the particular case so specified. I appreciate the hon. gentleman's courtesy in handing me the decision, and I looked into the question at a good deal of length because it was very interesting; but I cannot come to any conclusion other than this in respect to the Privy Council case, namely, that it will hold precisely the same position in Privy Council jurisprudence that the decision upon the Canada Temperance Act, has held within the last 15 or 16 years; that is to say, in a case in every possible respect absolutely within the decision it might be followed, but I would have my doubts as to whether there might not be a good deal of hesitation in following it any further.
Mr.^PUGSLEY. I am sure if I could make a suggestion that would expedite the disposal of this Bill, the committee would be pleased in view of the time that has already been taken. I understand from the remarks of those hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken that they are not opposed to the Bill, but they think before it is passed there should be some declaration of policy upon the part of the government as to the disposition to be made of water-powers which are owned by the Dominion government. I may say for the information of the committee that the Conservation Commission have this matter under careful consideration, and they expect to submit very shortly a report to the government on the subject. I need not say that their report, while I could not say it will be adopted, will be given the most careful and favourable consideration possible. The committee may, I think, rely that the public interest will be fairly safeguarded and that we will endeavour to act in accordance with the recommendation of the Conservation Commission.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: A word with reference to clause 12 of the Burrard Inlet Bill, which was referred to by the hon. member (Mr. Carvell). Those members who voted for that clause did so in the public interest.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No doubt.


William Sora Middlebro: These incorporators represented five or six municipalities which contained within their limits one half the population of the province of British Columbia and therefore, in giving to this company, those powers we were giving the benefits of those powers to one half the people of British Columbia because those incorporators produced there a Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
trust deed by which they acknowledged that they were procuring these rights as trustees for the benefit of one half the people of the province of British Columbia. They went further and said they were going to operate their works free of charge to the public, they agreed they would not charge the people using the works to cross -the river. We contend for that in the interest of one half of the people of the province of British Columbia and therefore in the public interest.


Mr. NEELY.: Since the hon. member (Mr. Middlebro) has given his reason why he supported in the Railway Committee the Burrard Inlet Bill which contained the same clause as this Bill which he is now opposing, I have to say with regard to the Burrard Inlet Bill that while it is true the municipality in the vicinity of the town where the bridge and tunnel were to be erected did support the Bill, as being a benefit to the people of British Columbia, the Bill was in fact promoted by private individuals. The company was incorporated for $3,000,000, and the only information the committee had was that the municipalities were prepared to subscribe about $300,000 or 10 per cent of the stock; the balance, so far as we know, being held by private individuals. On the first day the Bill was considered in committee it is true that the company agreed that no tolls should be charged over the traffic part of the bridge, but they substantially withdrew that guarantee and the Bill as it passed the House provides for the charging of tolls on that traffic bridge. When my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) gives that as a reason for supporting the Burrard Inlet Bill he consequently cannot reconcile his assent in that case with his opposition in this case. The whole trouble seems to be that certain hon. gentlemen opposite want the government, in connection with this Bill, to pronounce a policy on the disposition of water-powers. Since this Bill passed the Railway Committee, this is the third time it has been before the Committee of the Whole, and I think, Sir, that some strong objection should be shown against the Bill before it is held up in this way. Hon. gentlemen opposite say they are not trying to obstruct the Bill, but if they are not what in the name of common sense are they doing? When the Bill was first before the committee the member for South Simcoe asked for the policy of the government, and the. Minister of the Interior answered him by stating that his department had a stated policy as to the disposition of water-powers in tlie prairie provinces and in the northwest territories.


George Henry Bradbury: The minister was mis . taken.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What was that policy?


William Pugsley: To rent the water-powers.


David Bradley Neely: I have the words of the Minister of the Interior before me, and I read them from ' Hansard,' page 4949:


Air. OLIVER.: The demand has been made that this government should come forward with a policy with regard to water-powers. In so far as the waters of Canada are under the jurisdiction of this government, the government has a very definite policy in regard to water-powers, which has been in force for some time. With regard to the water which exists in the three prairie provinces, by the terms of the Irrigation Act, this water was vested absolutely in the control of the Dominion government. Under the terms of the Dominion Lands Act, passed in 1908, provision was made for the development of power upon these waters. Under the terms of the Act regulations have been passed and have been in force now for something like a year, providing the method by which rights in water-powers are acquired, making provision that a rental may be charged for the use of the water by the power company, which rental may be determined from time to time-that is at periods of 21 years-and making provision for the regulation of the charges which should be made to the consumers of the power generated from the water, such charges to be under the control of the Railway Commission, and to be subject to adjustment at periods of seven years.
And further he said:


Frank Oliver: I should have mentioned that I think the Irrigation Act applies to the Northwest Territories as well as to the three prairie provinces, but at any rate the Dominion Lands Act does and under the authority of that Act regulations have been made which would certainly apply to the water-powers that would he affected by either of these Bills. There is no question as to the policy of the government, or as to the administration of the government in regard to water-powers, which are unquestionably under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government. The present Bill applies to the Northwest Territories outside the limits of any province and therefore no question of provincial rights is involved.
That was the statement made to the committee by the Minister of the Interior, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite seem to want something further in the nature of a policy. Now, if the regulations already passed by the Minister of the Interior under the Dominion Lands Act and under the Irrigation Act are not satisfactory to hon. gentlemen opposite, it seems very strange that this particular private Bill must stand over until the whole question has been reconsidered and new regulations put in force. The objection of hon. gentlemen opposite is absolutely absurd. Are not the people of Canada quite satisfied that the water-powers under the control of the Dominion government are just as satisfactorily administered as those which are under the control of certain provincial governments? I think they are. I shall not discuss the situation in Ontario, but I do not know that the people of Ontario are getting very much cheaper power as a result of the Hydro-Electric Commission than are the people in the vicinity of water-powers controlled by the Dominion government. It is sufficient for me to call the attention of the House to the fact that the water-powers which are under the Dominion government are operated, leased and handed over to those who develop these powers under regulations framed by the minister by virtue of the authority given him in the Dominion Lands Act and in the Irrigation Act.


Frank Oliver: I want to make a little correction. I am reported as having said that the water-power regulations apply to the territory affected by this railway charter, which is the territory now known as the Northwest Territories/ and is not within the three prairie provinces. If I am correctly reported, I was in error in making that^ statement. The regulations only apply directly to the three prairie provinces, but so far as any declaration of policy by the government can be made, these regulations are a declaration of the policy of the government, and the fact that they do not apply to the Northwest Territories is only an inadvertence and is not intentional. The policy of the government is set out in the regulations, and will be made _ to apply to -all waters under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What is the charge per horse-power?


Frank Oliver: That will be fixed in the license and will vary according to circumstances. Where the cost of development is great in proportion to the amount [DOT]of power, it would not be sound public policy to charge a heavy rental; but where the quantity of horse-power is large, and the cost of development comparatively low, it would be only right that the general public should receive some benefit. The policy is to provide for a rental charge which is to be adjusted every 21 years and the charge is to be at the discretion of the Governor in Council. The charge per horse-power furnished by those who have developed it, will be subject to adjustment by the Railway Commission in periods of seven years. It would not be proper to make a fixed charge for the power to be used which would apply under all circumstances and in all cases.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What would be the action of the government in the event of a canal company, such as the company in

the present Bill getting an Act of incorporation, and then, under the powers of that Act, desiring to take possession of water-powers-what would be the policy of the government with regard to these water-powers? Would the corporation have the right to take them under terms different from what the government would fix in the case of a private company?


Frank Oliver: The duty of answering that question does not devolve upon me, but I would say most certainly that one company would be exactly in the same position as any other company or as a private individual. If a company wanted to secure water-powers belonging to this Dominion, they would have to get it under the policy of this government, which is expressed in the regulations already made and applicable to the three prairie provinces.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In these charters we give the right to take possession of water-powers in provinces where the land does not belong to the federal authority. Why should not the government go a step further and say it was their intention not to give such rights in charters but refer these companies to the provinces? We would then have a guarantee that no* injustice would be done any province.


Frank Oliver: Do I understand my hon. friend's suggestion to apply to the prairie provinces?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Any province.


Frank Oliver: There is a difference between the position in the prairie provinces and that in the other provinces. Jurisdiction with regard to the land and the water which covers the land in the prairie provinces rests in 'the Dominion government, but in the other provinces it is vested in the provincial governments, so that the responsibility, which rests distinctly upon th% Dominion government in respect of the three prairie provinces, does not rest upon that government at all in the other provinces. As regards the wajter-n,owens in the other provinces, the question whether we have any jurisdiction at all, is one I cannot answer. I am only speaking of the policy of the Dominion government as regards lands and waters unquestionably under its jurisdiction. We have declared our policy in that regard most unmistakably.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We had a Bill before us a short time ago for a canal, and it was contended that the federal power was the only one which could deal with a canal. If the company took possession of valuable water-powers belonging to a province for the purpose of running a canal, they would take them under the rights we gave Mr. SPROULE
them as a canal company and without regard to provincial interests, notwithstanding the land was the property of a province. The only way they would be checked would be by the refusal of the federal government to grant corporate powers to any company which would enable them to take what belonged to a province.


Mr. CONMEE.: This discussion has taken a somewhat wide range. I have been listening for some time to the criticisms on the Bill and the reference made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) to a Canal Bill which, he supposed, has taken away from somebody the right to water-powers. Now, I submit, that no such Bill has been presented to the House. All that ever was presented to the House was that the water-power, in so far as it was developed by the canal company, might be used for the purpose of operating the canal, and the surplus sold under certain regulations. The hon. gentleman seems to think that would perhaps give the company the right to take a great water-power and utilize it and, according to the language we hear on this matter, alienate it from the people. I submit that no such Bill has been presented to this House since I have been here. What is the principle of this Bill? It simply empowers a corporation which, without the Bill, would not as a corporation have powers, to expend its money for the development of water-powers that can acquire it. It is said this Bill differs a good deal from others because it is dealing with water-powers in the western provinces, and the question of expropriation is not as vital to the company as it would be under different circumstances. I do not see that that makes any difference in the principle. Because these gentlemen may acquire water-powers, whether they get them by expropriation or by agreement, how is the public prejudiced? That would be something hon. gentlemen should address themselves to. What can the public get from the development of a water-power? The leader of the opposition has compared water-powers to coal or timber. I do not think the comparison holds, for the reason mentioned by the hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell). Water-power is created by the flow of water past a given point. Once past, it is gone for ever so far as that portion of it is concerned. Coal can be exhausted, timber can be exhausted, but water-power can only be used as it presents itself. So, to discuss this question from the point of view of such a comparison is an error.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If you do not use coal and timber, they are still there as an asset.


James Conmee: You can conserve coal and timber, but you cannot conserve a water-power.


Mr. THOBURN.: Why not?


James Conmee: Because it flows and is gone.	,


Mr. GOODEVE.: May I ask this question? Does not the hon. member know that all these powers are alike in this-that if you give away a water-power, a coal mine or a timber tract, they are all equally gone so far as the public is concerned.


James Conmee: If you give a waterpower to a private individual, there might be some logic in the hon. member's question. But who has ever proposed to do anything of that kind? It is true that, twenty years ago, legislation might have been passed to give private control over water-powers. But does any hon. member pretend to say that parliament under recent legislation loses control over these water-powers, because it gives a charter to a company to develop them? Does anybody pretend to say that parliament loses control over a railway because it gives a charter to a company to build a line? I have here an Act of the legislature of Ontario, passed in 1907. It empowers the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario to take any water-powers they please.


Haughton Lennox: For the people.


James Conmee: My hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) says ' for the people.' This is not the place to discuss that question. But it does not make any difference whether it is in the interest of the people. The principle is that the Ontario legislature acted upon the principle that it had the power to take water-powers from private corporations, whether incorporated by the Dominion or incorporated by the province, and they empower their commission to take any water-power within the boundaries of Ontario. I grant that, in their view, they believed it was for the benefit of the people. But who knows whether it is going to be for the benefit of the people or not? Why, they got behind a private company and gave it plenary powers of monopoly for thirty years over the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William. I have the contract in my possession.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What company?


James Conmee: The Kakabeka Power Company. They give them a monopoly for twenty years of power that will cost the consumer at least $30. But I am not discussing that; I do not want to be drawn into that discussion, but the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) opened the door when he said it was for the public interests. Perhaps it may turn out to be more in the 168
public interest than I think it to be. But
that is not the point. This parliament does not lose its control over the water-powers We stipulate, in this very Bill, that the rates shall be subject to the Railway Board of Canada to adjust from time to time. Will any hon. member tell me what the public can get from the development of a water-power that they do no get under this Bill? If any hon. member can point out how, if the government develops a water-power, it could do better for the public or give more advantageous terms than can be secured from a company by the Board of Railway Commissioners, he will have made an argument, he will have made a point, and I shall be very glad to hear it. But I deny altogeher that it is possible for any government to develop and operate and supply power more cheaply than a company can do it. I would be very glad indeed to support a policy of development of water-powers by the government if the government would carry out that policy. But does anybody believe that this government, or any other, will develop the water-powers of this country as the people require them? It has been said by a great authority that water-powers are nature's gifts to the people. So they are. And, by the regulations which you are now adopting, and by the principle of public control for the public benefit, you are conserving those powers >so far as they can be conserved, for the benefit of the people. But it is not for the benefit of the people to lock up these water-powers as has been done in Ontario. The Hydro-Electric Commission has been six years in operation, and it has not developed one water-power. Is that in the interest of the public? But this is not the place to discuss that. They have made arrangements concerning water-powers, and, perhaps, from their point of view, they are doing good work. I am not here to criticise or find fault with that commission. But what I say is that a community living within reach of the -commercial use of a water-power ought not to be denied the benefits of that development simply because of the theory of some gentlemen that it -ought to be held. Held for what? For a private company? Hon. members opposite are upholding a Bill which will have that effect. I do not accuse members opposite of knowingly -or purposely playing into the hands of a corporation, but they did it just the same. In the case of the -canal Bill, they forced the company that asked for the Bill-practically forced them-to abandon the Kaministiquia route. Why? To maintain the monopoly of a private company that has a thirty years' grip -on the two great cities at the head of the lakes. That is what you accomplished.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: May I ask a question.


James Conmee: Yes, any question you like.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: By what process was that company forced, as the hon. gentleman puts it, to adopt another route? Was it not his own choice?


James Conmee: No, it was not my own choice.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then I misunderstood the hon. gentleman's statement in the Railway Committee.


James Conmee: My hon. friend .(Mr. Boyce) was one who opposed-as did a 'large number of others, backed by a strong deputation and assisted by a bench of lawyers-a particular feature of the Bill. This was done on public grounds. My hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Boyce) and no doubt my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) acted in perfect good faith. I do not think they understood what they were doing, and it was not my place to enlighten them. But what they did was to compel that company to withdraw from the Kaministiqua route.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Did the hon. member say that they were lawyers of the opposition company, the Kakabeka?


James Conmee: Yes, Mr. Chrysler and others were there-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Chrysler was representing, as the hon. member knows, the city of Fort William, appointed by the council of that city.


James Conmee: The hon. member is entirely mistaken.


Haughton Lennox: May I interject a word-


James Conmee: Yes, I want any question you like to ask.


Haughton Lennox: I do not wish to ask a question, but to make a statement. The hon. member (Mr. Conmee) mentioned my name. Perhaps he will allow me to tell him that I was not present at all.


James Conmee: I was evidently mistaken about that, and so I withdraw my assertion. But the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) was there on another occasion; I have a distinct recollection of that. I say that my hon. friend from Sault Sts. Marie (Mr. Boyce) is misinformed as to Mr. Chrysler being there for Fort William. Fort William was there because this company wanted the Bill to be amended, and the moment the Kaministiquia route was dropped, Fort William, Port Arthur, Mr. Chrysler and the whole bunch of them with the public interest at heart disappeared from the committee room and you heard no more about it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If the hon. member will pardon me, I will make this statement. He Mr. BOYCE.
well knows that that Bill has been referred to a committee, and the chairman of it purposes that all these persons interested, Port Arthur, Fort William, the Ontario government, and everybody else who wishes to be heard shall be heard before that committee. What does the hon. gentleman mean by saying that they have disappeared from the scene?


James Conmee: I will tell my hon. friend. He may hear from the Ontario government, he won't hear from the rest, because they are out of this trouble just now. They have the monopoly, and so far as I am concerned, I am willing to leave it with them.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: There is no monopoly.


James Conmee: There has been a monopoly for 30 years. I have the document in my pocket, and perhaps I will put it on 'Hansard' before this session is over; anyway I will give it to my hon. friend. I submit that the attack upon this Bill is unwarranted. Hon. gentlemen are mistaken when they say that this is handing over to a private company public interests. Parliament does not lose its control, par Lament can take this power out of the hands of this company at any time. Parliament can empower the Railway Commission to impose such conditions as wiil be in the public interest. The minister has stated that under the regulations parliament has the right to impose the condition of a payment to the public revenue for the use of the water; that is one of the conditions upon which it must obtain the power. It does'nt matter whether that power is in the three prairie provinces or within the territory of Ontario, the regulation applies to any power within Dominion jurisdiction. Now, there are cases even on international streams where water-powers exist upon Crown lands that are absolutely within the control and under the ownership of the federal government. These powers exist there, and they are dealt with on the same basis and on the same principle as are laid down in these regulations. Now, if hon. gentlemen will come forward with a policy and show wherein they can better protect the public interest than it is now protected by these regulations and by this legislation which they are opposing, then they will have accomplished something, but until they do that it seems to me that their arguments are not very strong. Now Bill (No. 118), section 12, gives absolute control for the sale of the surplus power, the very principle that hon. gentlemen are opposing; and they did not oppose that Bill seriously in the Railway Committee, they did not oppose it in this House. Why? Is it because it bore on the back of it the name of one of their own members? Is it because it was put through

by a colleague of theirs? Is that the only reason they were silent when it was going through the House? I do not say so, but the attitude of hon. gentlemen leads to that suspicion. I do not think it is in the public interest to attack private legislation, I do not think it is in the public interest to say that there should be no more development, no more enterprise, no more utilization of one of nature's great resources; you must wait on the policy of the Chinese empire, they have conserved a great many natural resources. Well, we do not admire that. To say that we must wait until parliament gets ready, until some administration appears that wall develop these water-powers before you can have any use of them, I do not think it sound policy. I think parliament should conserve the public interest so far as it is possible to do so, but beyond that I do not think we should go.


Mr. GOODE  VE@: Some hon. members have stated that the members from British Columbia are obstructing this Bill after having allowed a similar Bill (No. 118) to go through this House. Now, as one of the members from British Columbia I desire to take exception to that statement. In the first place, I think the members from British Columbia have taken but very little interest in the Bill now before the House. Only one or two of them have spoken on it, merely setting forth that their only reason for taking any part in the discussion was a desire to obtain the view of the government in regard to the conservation of these water-powers. They have made that clear; so I think it is very unfair in hon. members opposite to say that the members from British Columbia have been obstructing the Bill. They have made certain comparisons, and I would also like to compare the two Bills. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) said that Bill (No. 118) had been brought forward in the interest of monopolies. Let me tell that hon. gentleman that while it is true that a number of private individuals appeared in the Railway Committee as promoters of that Bill, they produced before the committee a deed of trusteeship showing that they were acting solely in the interests of the various municipalities interested. The fact was clearly brought cut in the Railway Committee that the Bill was promoted by a trusteeship. There is another point of distinction. Bill (No. 118) was a very definite Bill in a well known district having a large population; it was between two close 'points only a mile or two apart, namely, for the construction of a bridge and a tunnel. That was their only power. So when it is contended that Bill (No. 118) gave similar powers to the Bill now before the committee, I want to point out that these powers are absolutely 1684
restricted by clause 8 of that Bill. When we read'clause 8 in connection with clause 11, you will see that the powers are very restricted, they definitely point out that they can only develop power for the purposes of their undertaking. Now, for the purposes of their undertaking they acquire power to build a bridge and a tunnel between two definite and well known points, therefore, they only make use of this clause 11 in developing any power that they may have to use in connection with this specific undertaking. What is the case in the Bill before the House? We must also read clause 7 in connection with clause 13. and we find that instead of being narrow and definite powers, they are powers of a very broad nature. That is the strong objection taken by every. one who spoke on this Bill before the Railway Committee. Clause 7 reads thus:
Tile company may lay out, construct and operate a railway of the gauge of four feet eight and one-half inches, from a point on Lake Winnipeg, at or near its outlet into the Nelson river, or at or near the discharge of the Saskatchewan river into Lake Winnipeg, or from a place between the said points, to a point of junction with any railway to Hudson bay which may be located by the government of Canada.
Now there is no railway at the present time connecting with the Hudson bay, so you can see how broad that is. As a matter of fact it means that the company getting this charter practically has control of all the waterways in that great stretch of country from Lake Superior to Lake Winnipeg, draining this whole water shed. Furthermore, there is, in connection with these particular rivers, a large number of well known water-powers. One of the members stated that there were at least fifteen known water-powers in the territory referred to, and there is no doubt that there are many more powers that are unknown in a country which is as little known as this, and that is one of the reasons why, great reasons why we are pleading that before this Bill is passed thei governmeht should pronounce some definite policy in regard to this question.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has made the statement that this Bill will give to this company the control of these water-powers. Would my hon. friend be good enough to point out the section of this Bill that he says will give this company control of these water-powers?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Under clause 18 of the Bill they have the right to acquire and develop waterways in connection with their operations and contributory to this is clause 7. I would like to ask the minister, in answer to his question, would they not have a certain existing right that would

prevent future companies from applying to acquire these powers?


William Pugsley: Absolutely not.


William Stevens Fielding: Does this Bill give, or pretend to give, any water-powers whatever?


William Pugsley: None whatever.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: It gives them the right to acquire water-powers-


William Stevens Fielding: Any man has that right.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: in connection with
their railway, and I venture to say that if this Bill once passes and we attempt to give one of these water-powers to any other person, immediately these men would step in under clause 7 and say: You are taking away waters that we require for the purpose of our undertaking.


William Pugsley: They would have no right to say so.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: My experience has been in regard to these corporations that when they get a Bill containing a clause, such as clause 7, they will make a strenuous effort to exercise their supposed rights, and it was along that line that the British Columbia legislature proceeded to pass their Water Clauses Act. That brings me to another point in the argument. The company incorporated by the Burrard Inlet Bill will be subject to the control of the Water Clauses Act of the province of British Columbia whereby they would pay a proportionate amount depending upon the number of units of water they took.


James Conmee: Where is that to be found in the Burrard Inlet Bill?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: They would come under the Water Clauses Act of the province- and it is not necessary to put it in the Bill. That is exactly the point that we are contending for. We say that if the government would lay down a fixed policy whereby these water rights, which now are the property of the country, could be regulated, and whereby any one applying for them would be under one jurisdiction, we would have no objection to this Bill. I agree with the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) and some other members, and I think I agree with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals himself, in what they have said in regard to this aspect of the question. I want it distinctly understood that until such time as the government will develop these natural resources I am strongly in favour of their development by private parties, and I would be the last to make any objection to the development of these natural resources. We are not asking to prohibit their de-Mr GOODEEVE.
velopment but we would like that they should be properly conserved in the interest of the people as a whole.


William Pugsley: Is not the field within which the Burrard Inlet Company are to operate, and where they are to get their water-power within the railway belt?


Mr. COWAN.: No.


William Pugsley: I had the impression that the company would operate twenty miles on each side of the railway.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I think it is outside of the railway belt.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think we have travelled a great distance from the point raised by the hon. member for South Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox). As I understand his objection to this Bill it is that there should be provision made


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I was merely answering a question put to me by the hon. Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: What was the answer of the hon. gentleman?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: That it would not be within the railway belt.


William Pugsley: The railway belt extends twenty miles on each side of the Canadian Pacific railway.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I know, but it is not in that particular district. It terminates at the other end of Port Moody.


William Pugsley: But these water-powers would be developed east of Port Moody.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: No, they would be west.


William Pugsley: If these water-powers are within the railway belt, under a decision of the Exchequer Court, they would stand exactly in the same, position as water-powers in the Northwest.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I quite agree with the hon. minister, but they are not within the railway belt. I have no desire to obstruct the Bill, and I intend to confine my remarks to the comparison between the two Bills. I could go farther afield, and discuss the general proposition as was done by the hon. member for Rainy River, but I do not intend to do so.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve; had resumed his seat, and then he was asked a question. That question was answered by another hon. member from British Columbia, and I assumed that my hon. friend had finished his remarks. I beg his pardon for even seemingly having interrupted him. We have travelled a long distance from the point that was raised. As I understand the point of the hon. member for

South Simeoe it is that he objects to this Bill on the ground that there is no provision made by the government to impose any charge upon the water-powers which may be utilized under the authority of the Bill. The answer given by the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to that is very complete. I would join with my hon. friend if his objection was not met. Therefore, in view of the answer of the Minister of the Interior as regards the regulations now in force and enforced, his objection to this Bill falls absolutely to the ground.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member is not stating my position at all. I have no doubt he is inadvertently misstating it. My position is this: Regulations made by the department and which the department administer, from time to time, getting an order in council for them, is not such a broad, definite, specific, well known policy, as Canada should have asi to so great an interest, but there should be some declaration by parliament, and parliament should be, to some extent, consulted upon the broad lines upon which this government shall administer this great asset, instead of the administration being provided for merely by regulations.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not think my hon. friend has bettered his position in any way at all.


Haughton Lennox: That may be, I am only putting it as well' as I can.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The answer has been made by the minister in that way, and it strikes me that the objection to this Bill must fall to the ground. Had the same objection been taken to the Burrard Inlet Bill I could have seen the force of it, because there we were doing something that we are not attempting to do by this Bill, as we are not giving any powers of expropriation. Under Bill (No. 118) relating to the Burrard Inlet Company we were giving powers to expropriate, and we were giving the company power to take the property of the people of British Columbia without making any recompense.
Mr. 8. SHARPE. For the benefit of the municipalities.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That contention with respect to the municipalities must fall entirely to the ground. It is not the property of the municipalities, but it is the property of the government and people of British Columbia. Bill (No. 118) is not incorporating municipalities, and nothing was shown to the committee whereby the municipalities would have control. They might have some interest, somebody might hold stock in the company for them. Whom do we incorporate in Bill (No. 118)? The section reads:
E. Mahon, E. W. MacLean, James P. Fell and Lambert Bond, all of the city of Vancouver, and John Y. McNaug'ht and J. C. Keith, both of the city of North Vancouver, in the province of British Columbia, together with such persons as become shareholders in the company, are incorporated under the name of ' The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company,' hereinafter called ' the company.'
These are the gentlemen and they have the power, there is nothing to restrain them and there is no hold, so far as this parliament is concerned, upon any one of these gentlemen in behalf of a municipality or in behalf of a province, it is all moonshine to talk about that being a corporation under the control of munici palities, there was no such evidence, no sufficient evidence. The evidence that was presented did not carry us to the point to which my hon. friends would wish us to be carried. In this Bill (No. 118) we are not making any provision for a recompense for the rights which we granted, rights that under certain circumstances belong to the province of British Columbia, but by virtue of our declaration that it was a work for the general advantage of Canada we were infringing upon their rights, usurping property that was theirs and not imposing on this company any compensation for the province of British Columbia. When this Bill was before the committee on a previous occasion, I called attention to the rules adopted in some of the United States and particularly the rule that is applied in the state of New York. The Minister of the Interior says that under our system the federal government regulations do not impose any specific rate with respect to all companies but they impose a rate dependent on the circumstances which govern each case. Our system of government, it will be admitted is quite different from the system in the United States or in a state oi the American union. As was shown to the committee the other day, the state of New York, whenever they incorporate any company granting power-rights or granting lands in connection therewith, or granting any franchise relating thereto, impose upon that company a fixed tax at the very in ception of the Bill. That tax is increased annually until they are finally an operating company, and then there is so much imposed on the company for every horsepower developed by them. I quoted the rate at page 4939 as follows:
Upon all amounts up to 25,000 electrical horse-power, at the rate of 75 cents per horsepower; upon all amounts in excess of 25,000 electrical horse-power and up to 100,000 horsepower, at the rate of 50 cents per horse power; upon all amounts in excess of 100,000 electrical horse-power, at the rate of 25 cents per horse-power. In case said corporation

shall generate or develop water-power as mechanical power without transmuting the same into electrical power, then for so much of said water-power as may be developed, payments shall be made at the above mentioned rates per mechanical horse-power.
We should have that system in this country and I think we do have it according to my understanding of the statement of the Minister of the Interior. These charges made by the state of New York are applicable to the development of the water-power at the Long Sault so-called, that portion of the waters of the St. Lawrence that flow over American soil; and if like powers were granted by this parliament, to any company to develop that power, in connection with the American company, I would assume that the government of Canada, before granting any rights to any such company, would impose amounts, at least equal to the amounts imposed by the legislature of the state of New York. Our parliamentary system is somewhat different from theirs, our governmental system is different. There, in the absence of any general governmental regulations, the legislature in respect to each individual company imposes what they deem to be right and proper in the interests of the state as well as in the interest of the corporation seeking the powers. If we had imposed upon the Bur-rard Inlet Company a charge such as is imposed under this Bill of Incorporation by the state of New York, we would have done what I would conceive to be proper because the regulations of the department could not apply to the development of the British Columbia water-power and the regulations referred to by the Minister of the Interior only apnlv to waters that are under the control and within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada. If we are going to impose such charges on this company we should have inserted a similar provision in the Bill relating to the Burrard Inlet Company. We allowed the Bill to go through and, therefore, it would seem to me if it would be manifestly unfair to further delay this Bill which has in my judgment been unwarrantably delayed. Much time has been occupied, there are no features about it that are a menace or peril either to Dominion or provincial property. I opposed the Bill at its inception because of certain features, which features were amended. I feel now that any objectionable features connected with the Bill have been removed and that it stands upon the same basis as many other Bills which we have permitted to pass both the Railway Committee and this Committee of the whole House.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: The Minister of the Interior has told the committee that he intends applying to the Northwest Terri-Mr. EMMERSON.
tories certain regulations which have been in force for a year with regard to water-powers in the prairie provinces, and to that extent, at all events, the action of the opposition in discussing this Bill has been productive of some good.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It. would be an awful thing to say you were no good.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) has stated that this Bill contains provisions similar to tire Burrard Inlet Bill.


William Pugsley: Only less so.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) is wrong in that statement. In the Railway Committee the trust deed that was executed by the promoters of the Burrard Inlet Bill in favour of the municipalities was produced and read., and it is therefore not correct for the hon. gentleman to say that the promoters were not trustees for the municipalities.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I said there was not sufficient evidence to show that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not know what stronger evidence could be produced than the production of the trust instrument executed by the promoters of that Bill in favour of the different municipalities. The Burrard Inlet Bill p'romoters were trustees for the people, but the Bill now before us incorporates a private company which no doubt will exact the maximum fees out of the community. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Emmerson) also told us that we conferred powers of expropriation upon the Burrard Inlet Company without providing that the province should be compensated, but in that also he is mistaken, because under the Railway Act the company must compensate for the property expropriated whether it belongs to the province or. to individuals. What we ask in connection with this Bill is that the government shall declare a policy with respect to these water-powers. At present the Minister of the Interior can act on his own discretion; he can charge anything he likes or he can charge nothing, and we know how easily these important franchises are granted to the friends of the administration when we consider the easy methods by which our grazing and timber lands were alienated from the people. What we feel is that the moment this company gets immense rights all over that great territory they will seek to grasp the water-powers, and the Minister of the Interior will no doubt facilitate them. The fees for these water-powers should be fixed by statute so that all may know -them, and so that all may have an opportunity to obtain them on equal terms. 1 was surprised to hear the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) cast reflections on the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission, and

for his information I would say that the policy of that commission has met with absolute approval from both sides of the House in the Ontario legislature, and has received the almost unanimous support of the people in every municipality in which it was submitted for their approval. The mere declaration of policy by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission was sufficient to reduce the price of power to consumers from one-third to one-half. The Toronto Street Railway Company had been paying one of the jiower companies $57 per horse-power, and the Hydro-Electric Commission are ' about to sell' citizens power at $25 per horse-power. That is something which the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission has done for the benefit of the people. We were told by the Minister of Public Works that the Commission on the Conservation of Our Natural Resources are considering a broad policy in this matter, and as we are also told that their report is expected very soon, what is the harm of ask* ing that this Bill should stand until we know from that report whether it is advisable to pass it in its present form or not.


Mr. NESBITT.: The Minister of the Interior has clearly defined his policy which is that each application for the use of power will be dealt with on its merits, and when hon. gentlemen opposite consider that some water-powers may be worth a great deal more than others I think they will agree that such is the only policy that can be thought of. The water-powers concerned in this Bill are a long distance away from any probable users, and the exaction of any high fee would of course make development prohibitive. This Bill does not authorize them to generate power; it simply places them in a position whereby they can negotiate for the right to use and develop water-power.. Indeed, under the provisions of this Bill the powers given to this company are very restricted, and limited. So far as I am concerned, I am not going to say anything to hon. members opposite for having voted for the Bur-rard Inlet charter because I voted for it myself. I do not see why it is mentioned here, because it has nothing to do with this particular charter, and because in the Bill before us, the charter is surrounded by some very stringent conditions. There is a little amendment which I could suggest to clause 11 when we come to it, and which is in one or two other charters, and it is one to which I am sure the promoters of the Bill will agree to. Everything else is so surrounded by conditions that I think hon. gentlemen opposite should be satisfied to let the Bill go through. I do not 3ee how the country runs any risk, nor do I see how it ran any risk when the Burrard Inlet charter went through. As to the contention that the promoters of the Burrard Inlet charter were acting as trustees for the municipalities, we had nothing to show that they were. If they had been, they should have incorporated the trust deeds in their charter, and that would have been absolute proof. Now, this matter was fully discussed in the Railway Committee, and passed that committee, and I hope hon. members opposite will withdraw their opposition. I ask them in all fairness to do so.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The only water-powers available to this company are those owned by the Dominion, and I cannot see why the government, before they convey any water-powers to this company, should not declare that they will ' consider the whole Question and lay down some definite policy.' The House should have the power to pronounce whether the waterpower will be alienated or not. There are no people out there now and no market for the water, and the individuals who are seeking this Act of incorporation do not live in the territory. One of them is from Campbellton, New Brunswick, another from Montreal, and another from London. England. They have no personal interest in the .locality and are simply company promoters.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Does the hon. gentleman forget that we are giving them simply the right to acquire water-power in connection with their undertaking and not for general purposes, and the undertaking is to build a certain railway? When they come to build it and want water-power, the Minister of the Interior can deal out justice to them, and at the same time, protect the public interest.


William Thoburn: I have had something to do with water-powers for the last 25 or 30 years, and the question to me is whether it is in the best interests of the people in general that water-powers, at the disposal of the government, should be acquired by either railway companies or canal companies, or whether it is not better that they should be left for the general use of the public. Take as an illustration this whole Ottawa valley, from the town of Brockville to Pembroke, where there are some ten or twelve towns and villages, and several streams that afford from one to ten water-powers in each town or village, I have never known that a railway company or a canal company had any control over those water-powers, and as a consequence they are developed by private parties for manufacturing purposes. The question to me is this, whether it would not be better in these towns, where these railways are going through, to have the water-powers under the control of the government, either Dominion or provincial, than under the control of a railway or canal company. From my experience, I believe it would be

in the interest of the development of this country that 'whatever water-powers the government control should be retained by the government, because people would much prefer going to the government to get the franchise of a water-power than to a railway or canal company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask whether this Bill is not intended to give the incorporators the right to control water-powers under clause 15 of the Railway Act? That clause provides:
Enter into and upon any Crown lands without previous license therefor, or into or upon the lands of any person whomsoever, lying in the intended route or line of the railway, and make surveys, examinations or other necessary arrangements.

Admitting that there is a water-fall, if the company ran its line within a few feet of that water-fall-and I think they have the right to take 100 feet for right of way-if in that 100 feet is included that fall, would not this company thereby get control' of the water-power, and actually, if it was not necessary to put -a dam there to raise the *water, get the beneficent effects of the stream and convert it into a power on their own property? It seems to me they could by that very means take possession of numerous valuable water-powers. If the minister has passed through Kenora in daylight, he must have noticed that the Canadian Pacific railway passes right by the edge of a water-fall, close to the Lake of the Woods Milling Company, where the fall is on the right of way of the railway, and the railway would have the right to go on that property and utilize that power. Notwithstanding the fact that that power is in the province, the province would be deprived of the right and the beneficial interest which they have in the stream because of the fact that this special company acquired the right to expropriate the land for the purpose of running its railway. Could not this company, by the same means, * get control of valuable water-powers?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entirely right if the water-power happens to be on the right of way of the railway. The railway would then be the owner of the water-power because it is the owner of the property. But it would have that right irrespective altogether of section 13. If my hon. friend imagines that a railway company will be allowed to go zig-zagging here and there to cross a water-power, of course, that might possibly occur, but it is a most improbable supposition. Under section 13, the company could not erect a dam without coming to the Minister of Public Works for the approval of the Governor in Council. It could not flood back the water without authority. And I think my hon. friend Mr. THOBTJRN.
will agree with me that there are very few water powers in this country that can be utilized to advantage without the building of a dam, or without going to a large expense to sink flumes to carry the water from above the dam to the foot of the falls, which, in the great majority of cases, would carry a considerable distance beyond the right of way which the company is authorized to take. But the point to which I draw my hon. friend's attention is that it would not affect the case he refers to even if section 13 was struck out.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I object to is giving a railway corporation the right to take over water-powers. I think they should have no such rights and have thought so for a long time. The minister said they would not zig-zag their railway to reach water-powers. But they may run a line straight to reach a valuable water-power, and their engineer would probably take good care of that. The minister knows that on the Canadian Pacific railway in the west are several water-powers under the control of the railway company. There are instances where there are substantial water-powers that could be used without erecting a dam at all.


James Conmee: The conditions at Kenora to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) refers are against his own argument. It is true the Canadian Pacific railway runs over the water-power at that point-and not one but four water-powers, for the Lake of the Woods has three different outlets discharging into Winnipeg river. The railway crosses each of these at the head of the falls. But that does not give the Canadian Pacific railway the right to these water-powers. All four water-powers are developed, but they are in the hands of private corporations. The Lake of the Woods Milling Company was not a pow'er development by reason of the falls, but by reason of the narrow strip of land between the river and the lake, and they tunnelled underneath across the railway. At the other outlets they made their power at Keewatin. The railway company got no control. At Keewatin, they have a 300-foot right of way, because they have sidings, but even that did not give them control of the waterpower, because the water could not be taken from the head and vented in that space. They cross the Wabigon river where there is a water-power and, though the railway crosses right over the falls, that power is developed by a private company, and for the same reason. It is inconceivable that a narrow strip of right of way under any circumstances could give a railway control of a water-power. The best evidence that this cannot be done is the fact that there is not a single case that can be pointed out. I have travelled a good deal in this country and I do not know of

one such case. I do not believe that any hon. member can point to a case where the railway right of way gave control of a water-power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member (Mr. Conmee) has cited instances where, although this power was within the right of way of the railway, the railway companies never used the water-powers they reached. It is for that reason that I say we should not put it in the Bill.


James Conmee: What I said was that not only the railway company did not control, but that other private companies have developed and used the water-power and are using it to-day. The power to which he has referred is all developed and is running great establishments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that some of them at least were by negotiation with the railway company.


James Conmee: Not at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps the hon. member is better informed than I am, but I am not always disposed to take what he says without further evidence than his mere statement.


William Pugsley: Suppose that there are valuable undeveloped water-powers in that country, would it not be desirable, seeing that they are at a long distance from coal supply, to operate the railway by electricity? And, in that case, would it not be well for the railway to have authority to utilize water-power for that purpose? It seems to me the very thing the development of which we ought to facilitate if we are giving the company a charter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We are roid that they have millions of tons of coal in that country. But is there good reason to provide, now by the incorporation of a company for what may happen a hundred years 1 once, tieing up, in the meantime, valuable assets of the country in the interest of private corporations? I do not think there is.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If it would pay the railway company to develop and use the water-power, would it not pay the government to develop it, then let the railway come to the government for what power it needs? The government could sell to the railway company what they want and get a reasonable return on the capital, and they could supply -any municipality or others at favourable rates.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. S. Sharpe) is opening up a very broad question of government ownership. I would not like to say that it would not be wise for the government to do it, but I do not think the country is, at the present moment, prepared to approve of the government going into a large scheme of developing water-powers all over the country.
On section 11:
11. The company may purchase, lease, or otherwise acquire, hold, enjoy and manage such lands, water-lots, wharfs, docks, dockyards, slips, warehouses, elevators, offices and other building's as it finds necessary and convenient for its purpose, and may construct any of such works or buildings, and sell or otherwise dispose thereof for the purposes of the company, and may carry on the business of warehousemen and wharfingers, and charge wharfage and other dues for the use of any such property, and may enter into any agreements with any such company respecting the use of any of the property of such company.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) has placed in my hands an amendment which he has asked me to .suggest to the committee. The amendment is to strike out the words after the word 'property' in the third line from the bottom, and insert the words, 'but no such wharfage or other dues shall be charged or taken until they have been approved of by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, who may also revise such wharfage and other dues from time to time.' I think that is a very good provision.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would ask the minister whether, in this section, the words ' or otherwise acquired ' would cover acquisition by expropriation?


William Pugsley: No, that would mean by purchase, lease or otherwise acquired. It must be by some voluntary arrangement. It would not give power to expropriate.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I am not prepared offhand to say that this amendment would be in order, as rule 111 provides that it must have one day's notice.


William Pugsley: I would not press it unless it had the unanimous approval of the committee. But it is limiting the powers of the company, it is making a charge of wharfage and other dues subject to the approval of the Railway Commission. I submit the amendment revised as follows:
But no such wharfage or other dues shall be charged or taken until they have been approved bv the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, who may also revise such wharfage and other dues from time to time.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me there is an anomaly here. Nearly all wharfages dues imposed by the government are imposed through the Marine and Fisheries Department, but we are transferring them now to the Railway Commission.


William Pugsley: These are- dues upon a private wharf owned by a railway company. But the wharf would be owned in

connection with terminal railway facilities, and it seems appropriate that the Railway Commission should have charge of these dues.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There will probably be a mix-up. You can imagine that this railway reaches several towns where there is much shipping, and private wharfs exist alongside the company's wharf. In one case control of rates would be vested in the Marine and Fisheries Department, and in the other case in the Railway Commission.
On section 13,


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understand this section in connection with section 4 will give them no right to sell to the municipality without a by-law on the part of the municipality.


William Pugsley: That is clear.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Later on, by the amendment, it gives them express power .to sell and distribute in a municipality.


William Pugsley: That will be subject to
the provisions of section 247.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I doubt whether it goes that far. Ini the general clause at the beginning of the section, we make it subject to section 247 of the Railway Act, and then, apparently contradicting that, we give them power to sell and distribute to the municipality.


William Pugsley: Suppose we put in the seventh line on page 3 the words ' may subject to the like provisions ' ?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Subclause 8 of section 247 of the Railway Act has this provision:
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to authorize the company to exercise the powers therein mentioned for the purpose of selling or distributing light, heat, power or electricity in cities, towns or villages, without the company having first obtained consent therefor by a by-law of the municipality.
That requires them to get a by-law of consent from the municipality?


William Pugsley: Yes. I would move:
That immediately after the word ' may ' where it occurs in line 7, on page 3, there shall be inserted the words 'subject also to the provisions of said section 247 of the Railway Act '.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If they get this: power subject to that section, and having regard to the subsection that 1 have just read providing that they may sell power after getting the authority of the municipality, would they not then have the power to sell without coming under the clause which provides that the Board of Railway Commissioners may approve of the tariff?


Mr PUGSLEY.: 


William Pugsley: No, the last clause covers that. There is a double security. There is the consent of the municipality under section 247 of the Railway Act, and then the rates must be approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners under the last clause.
Amendment (Mr. Pugsiey) agreed to.
On section 16, issue of securities other than railway.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Should not the Minister of Public Works or some other responsible minister have some supervision over the amount of the securities to be issued under section 16? Suppose the company acquired a water-poweT, they could issue bonds away beyond what is necessary to construct a dam or other works, and then when they came to fix the rates the Railway Commission would not have in mind the cost of the construction so much as the amount of capitalization. The company would want a revenue upon the amount of the capitalization, and not upon the cost of construction.


James Conmee: The board is not bound to do that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I know, but they always look at that for stock is transferred to widows and orphans, and the protection of vested rights comes in, and they say that we must give an income on the amount of capitalization, and not on the cost of construction.


William Pugsley: There is a great deal in what my hon. friend says, but the objection to doing that is that you would have the Minister of Public Works certifying to the value of the property, investors would rely upon the certificate of a responsible officer of the government that the value would fairly represent their security, and it might do more harm than good. The investor usually looks out as to these things where the securities are issued upon floating property. They are simply upon the security of vessels, and other works which may be undertaken.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: They would include
water-powers.


William Pugsley: I think it would be better to leave it to the investor.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: We limit the amount of securities that may be issued with respect to the railway. Why not with respect to the other works of the company?


William Pugsley: In regard to the railway you limit it to so much per mile, but I have never known it to be limited in cases where railway companies are authorized to build steamers or other works. You cannot say that >a company should not issue beyond $200,000 or $300,000, and

if you say they cannot issue bonds beyond their value it means that the Minister of Public "Works fixes the value and makes these bonds good. The idea is given to the public by the issue of a certificate of a reponsible officer of the government that the value is equal to the amount of the securities issued. If investors, relying upon that certificate instead of making an examination for themselves, were to suffer loss they would feel that the government had done them a very great wrong, and I think it would be very objectionable to attempt to make any provision in regard to that rather than to leave it to the investor to make the examination for himself.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.
At six o'clock committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.



ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 115) to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company Limited.-Mr. Pardee.
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This Bill has many objectionable features even with all the amendments made to it in the Private Bills Committee. In its original form it had many objectionable provisions, some of which were removed after many days' discussion in the committee. When the Bill came up for discussion in the Private Bills Committee, I moved that it be referred to the Committee on the Conservation of the National Resources of Canada for report. The promoters naturally objected and asked, in somewhat querulous tones, what the Conservation Commission had to do with a transmission line? On a division, however, the Bill was referred to the commission and we had a report from the chairman. In that report he objected to 9 clauses out of 19. I have his letter here, which I think ought to be placed on 'Hansard'.
Referring to the letter of your clerk on the subject of Bill (No. 115), I beg to state that the Bill has been examined as carefully as time and information permits.
The St. Lawrence Power Company is at present seeking authority to develop a power scheme by damming the St. Lawrence river at Long Sault. This project is being opposed by the Commission of Conservation for reasons. some of which have already been made public.
An examination of Bill (No. 115) indicates clearly that the introduction of this Bill is a portion of the St. Lawrence Power Company's plans. It is to be noted that the president of the power company and one of its engineers
are the first named among the proposed incorporators, and the powers asked for are of an unusual and very sweeping character.
The passage of the Bill as it stands would give parliamentary sanction to an important portion of the St. Lawrence Power Company's proposals, and would complicate the situation unnecessarily.
On the other hand it is urged that some of the towns affected, particularly Prescott and Broekville, are without a supply of power, and that a transmission line is necessary in their interest. There does not appear to be any reason why authority for the construction of a transmission line, simply, should not be given, and if Bill (No. 115) were for such a purpose alone there could be no serious objection to it.
Your particular attention is drawn to sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 as being objectionable, on account of the large and unnecessary powers asked for. These clauses apparently contemplate monopolization of powers on a very large scale. It is to be. noted also that there are no provisions in the Bill protecting the municipalities in regard to the use of streets or roads, nor anything requiring the company to acquire or pay for a right of way. Difficulty has already arisen in regard to this latter point in other cases, and it requires to be specifically provided for.
Under these circumstances it is recommended-
First, That sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 be struck out, and that, in lieu thereof. there be substituted proper provisions giving authority for the construction of a transmission line, and for power to buy, transmit and sell power within Canada.
Second, That a clause be added declaring that the Act shall come into force only on proclamation of the Governor General in Council and upon such conditions as the Governor General in Council may by order provide, such conditions to be read as forming part of the Act.
The latter provisions will place upon the Governor in Council the responsibility of seeing that the Act is not made use of except for the purpose for which it is properly intended, and to protect the municipalities concerned.
Part of the objections raised by the chairman were removed by the Committee on Private Bills, but a great many of the objectionable features still remain. As the chairman of the Conservation Commission says, this Bill is merely a part of a much larger scheme promoted by a number of very wealthy American gentlemen, who desire to get control of the St. Lawrence power proposition on the St. Lawrence river. One significant fact was that the promoters would not say where they purposed getting their power. But the engineer and the chief promoters of this measure are applying for permission to dam the St. Lawrence, so that that is where they purpose getting their power. Another very great objection, is the fact that this is a private Bill, promoted for commercial purposes and private gain, and contains some very large expropriation powers. This is a vicious principle

to introduce into private legislation. What some member of the committee desired was that the promoters should specifically mention the clauses of the Railway Act they desire to apply to their company; but instead of doing this, they make the' general provisions of the Railway Act apply where it suits them. But, instead, of that, they made the general provisions of the Railway Act apply to the company where applicable. These powers are very broad and general. By reason of the privileges and rights conferred upon them, they accept some of the provisions of the Railway Act and reject others. They accept such clauses _ as they think applicable to their enterprise and reject those detrimental to their interest and disadvantageous to the company. A company applying to parliament for a private charter to carry on a private enterprise of this kind ought to be made to declare specifically the powers they desire to have, instead of making the general Railway Act applicable to the enterprise.
Another great defect in this Bill is that under it the company may enter and expropriate the lands of the municipality and construct transmission lines upon them without the consent of the municipality. This question was raised last year under the Bill of the Ontario Michigan Power Company. It was amended by inserting the clause 10, which says:
The company should not enter within the limits of any municipality with any transmission line or sell or distribute electrical or other power therein without the consent of such municipality expressed by by-law.
The promoters of the present Bill state that this provision is covered by section 247 of the Railway Act, but that clause merely provides that a company shall not sell or distribute electricity within a municipality except by the consent of a municipality. It does not prevent them from running transmission lines without the municipality's consent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. S. Sharpe) to say that, in his opinion, there should be a clause under which the company could not sell electricity within the municipalty without the consent of the municipality?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: No, that is already provided by section 247 of the Railway Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the company comes under that section?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the expropriation section?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I refer to subsection 8 of section 247 of the Railway Act, which reads:
. Nothing contained in this section should ' be deemed to authorize the company to exer-' cise the powers therein mentioned for the purpose of selling or distributing light, heat, power or electricity in cities, towns or villages, without the company haying first obtained consent therefor by a by-law of the municipality.
This merely refers to the selling and distribution of electricity within a municipality, and has nothing to do with transmission lines. Under the Bill now under discussion the company can build their lines through any municipality by their powers of expropriation, without the consent of the municipality. Some of the municipalities which this company will traverse have already conferred rights on other companies to transmit electricity. If we grant the powers proposed in this Bill in its present shape, those powers will override the powers under that municipal by-law, and without the consent of the municipality this concern will be able to expropriate the works of the companies already doing business within the municipalities under by-law.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: And doing business under provincial charter.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes. Another great objection to the Bill is in connection with the question of provincial rights, a question which has repeatedly come before this House in connection with such Bills. If the province has an asset which this company desires to expropriate, it can expropriate under the powers proposed to be conferred. Mr. Lynch Staunton, counsel for the Ontario government, appeared before the Private Bills Committee on this subject, and I may say that there were very few members present at that committee, mainly for the reason, I suppose, that there was a meeting of the Railway Committee at the same time. I think that the rules of the House should provide that no two such important committees as railways and private Bills should sit at the same time. At the time that this Bill was being discussed before the Private Bills Committee, the energies of many hon. members were being directed against the Bill proposed by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee); that . is, we had the spectacle of two private companies making-


Haughton Lennox: Raids at the same time


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes, two raids at the same time, one in the Railway Committee and one in the Private Bills Committee; and both with respect to water-powers,
5321 MARCH 14, 1910 5322	
which they sought to obtain through legislation in this parliament. It is quite reasonable that this Bill should be discussed in the light of the policy of the HydroElectric Commission of the Ontario government. We have heard much discussion of this policy. It was alluded to this after-noofi by one hon. member, who, I am convinced, was not very familiar with the facts-who certainly did not speak by the book. He expressed a doubt that the policy of the Hydro-Electric Commission in Ontario had caused a reduction in the price of power. Everybody knows that the Hydro-Electric policy of the Ontario government has met with the absolute approval of both sides of the House in the local legislature. The present opposition in the legislature dare not challenge that policy-has never dared to challenge it. That policy has been submitted to manv municipalities and has been carried by ten to one. The people are unanimous in its favour, except certain interests that are affected by it. Everybody knows that this policy is carried out on the plan of the maximum of service at the minimum ol cost; and everybody knows that the private enterprises are carried on on exactly the opposite plan. Anything that will detract from the effectiveness of the Hydro-Electric Commission policy should not be encouraged by this parliament. The policy known as the Hydro-Electric has reference to every part of the province of Ontario. The commission, I understand, has laid out the province into several divisions, and has had its experts and engineers making reports on these divisions. I have here the fourth report, which is to be found on file in the library. It deals extensively, in a wise and comprehensive way, with this Ottawa and St. Lawrence district. Speaking of undeveloped locations-page 9-the report says: Along the St. Lawrence river, which has no laterals in this part of Ontario, except a email stream at Gananoque, a peculiar situation has been created by the construction of the various ship canals. These canals can be used to a limited extent as head races for power developments, but evidently extensive use is objectionable to the navigation interests, due to the creation of currents, and therefore no very extensive constructions of this type need be expected. The St. Lawrence has enormous potential water-powers, and the future outlook in this locality would seem to be in the nature of very extensive developments, possible only by placing dams in the main river, or else, as at Hoople Creek, near Cornwall, by means of an expensive head canal, circumventing and not interferring with the ehjp canals themselves. It proceeds: In general, it may be said that, with the exception of a small area, lying between the St.	Lawrence and Ottawa rivers and east of Smith's Falls, the whole district covered by this report is bountifully supplied with water-powers capable of being developed for reasonable costs per horse-power. Your commissioners, following the policy outlined in their earlier reports, have not thought it necessary to consider any but the more important undertakings, where electrical energy is being generated for power as well as lighting purposes, and transmitted some distance. A partial list of plants in the district coming under this head are Andrewsville, Mat-tawa, Pembroke, Perth, Renfrew and Morris-burg. The St. Lawrence Power Company and the Hawkesbury Electric Light and Power Company have not furnished the necessary information asked for by your commissioners. I will not delay by reading the full report, but it i3 exhaustive, and deals with water-powers and transmission lines in this particular district. I have a letter in my hand from a gentleman who is deeply interested in the success of the hydro-electric policy throughout Ontario. It is dated February 17, 1910, and reads a3 follows: My Dear Sir,-I note that Bill (No. 115), to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited, has been referred to the commission. When the Bill comes before the commission for consideration, 1 desire that the commission should know that as earlv as 1906, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario had the second and tourtb reports on water-power prepared, copies ot which are inclosed. The territory covered by these reports lies between Toronto and Brock-ville. Eleven municipalities in the teritory have asked for estimates and negotiated with the commission for a supply of power, and others are about to apply. 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 he 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 that a dual system is a hindrance to municipalities in the working out of their plans, and such a system should not be encouraged. I shall be obliged if your commission will give the facts I have mentioned careful attention. Yours faithfully, Now the opposition that should be raised against this Bill is on the ground stated in that letter that it is a duplicate of those transmission lines. An hon. MEMBER. Who is the writer of the letter? [DOT] Mr. S. SHARPE. The letter was written in confidence to myself, but I will show it

to the hon. gentleman if he wishes to see it. As I was saying, the great objection the writer of this letter has to the Bill is the fact that it is duplicating these transmission lines. They have made a report which covers this very territory. If this transmission line is run along this territory it means that there will have to be dual rates in order to maintain two lines. The commission has made a report upon this very territory, and has provided a plan whereby municipalities can be served, and all it requires co-operation on the part of the municipalities in order to call into operation the wise policy of the Hydro-Electric Commission.


Mr. ROBERT SMITH.: What municipalities have offered to take this power from the Hydro-Electric Commission?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 
Mr. GUTHRIE.: I did not hear the discussion in the Private Bills Committee. Did any of the municipalities the hon. gentleman has just enumerated, Belleville, Cornwall, Brockville, Kingston, Renfrew, make any opposition to this Bill?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think they were represented by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) and the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid), and they offered strong opposition to the Bill.


Hugh Guthrie: As municipalities?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not suppose that the municipalities knew that this Bill was coming before the Private Bills Committee, although I suppose it would be advertised in the usual way. But this interview states that several of these municipalities have made application to the commission to develop and transmit electricity to the various municipalities, and they were in negotiation with other municipalities. The Hydro-Electric Commission served this very territory through which this transmission line is proposed to be run.


Robert Smith: When and how?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That might be a very pertinent question for the hon. gentleman to direct to the promoters of this Bill. When they proposed to build a transmission line they had already proposed to get the power. The same sources of power for this transmission line are available for the HydroElectric Commission. The commission have pow'er to expropriate any power in Ontario situate within the province for the purpose of the municipalities, and if there is, no power available for the Hydro-Electric Commission, there is no power available for the promoters of this Bill.
I think it is well that this House should show their appreciation of the gravity of the situation as far as the natural resources of the country are concerned. The time of this House is occupied with fighting these power Bills. We are only coming to a proper sense of appreciation of the

value of these water-powers. An hon. gentleman this afternoon spoke about the fetish that we are worshipping with Tespect to these water-powers. It is only of late years that these powers have been utilized for the purpose of developing electricity, and we are only properly appreciating their value and that we should not alienate them without proper consideration. We have had companies incorporated year after year lately for the purpose of acquiring these water-powers. Great octopuses are reaching out and gathering in these powers before the people are coming to a proper sense of their value and utility. Private members are occupied more than half their time in framing objections and fighting the piratical propositions of these companies for the purpose of acquiring these water-powers. The discussion of a Bill that was proposed this afternoon is apropos to the discussion in reference to this Bill, inasmuch as the same point is involved, that the government should have some definite policy with reference to water-powers. They should have some definite policy in reference to the right to expropriate municipal lands or rights as well as provincial rights, and we should have some expression of opinion from the ministry in connection with these Bills. I think there should be some rule provided as to the propriety of the whip of either side of the House being sponsor for any private legislation, particularly when he enjoys the popularity that the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) enjoys on both sides of the House. We know that these private promoters have the faculty of ingratiating themselves in the good opinion first, of the whips, then of the other members, and we know with what facility the whips can always get the party in line. I think it would be wise that we should adopt some rule whereby the whip should not be the sponsor of any private Bill when it has for its purpose the taking away of provincial or municipal rights. In connection with this Bill this company seem to have unlimited finances behind them. It is stated in one of the Ottawa papers today that there are millions behind this proposition, and that this transmission line is merely a subsidiary undertaking in connection with the bigger scheme of damming the St. Lawrence river. They have practically taken advantage of every method to get both parties in line on this Bill. We had a prominent Reform lawyer before the Private Bills Committee advocating with great ability the many good features of this Bill, and, on the other hand, we had a Conservative lawyer advocating the splendid features of the Bill, in order to catch both sides of the House. Then we had the hon. member for West Lambton promoting this Bill and endeavouring to
get it through notwithstanding that there was great opposition in the Private Bills Committee.
As far as I am personally concerned, I am opposed to the whole principle of the Bill, but I think the promoters should consent to two amendments in the public interest. One of the amendments was suggested by the chairman of the Conservation Commission. They did not adopt that suggestion. It had reference to clause 10, and it was suggested by the chairman of the Conservation Commission:
That a clause be added declaring that the Act shall come into force only on proclamation of the Governor General in Council and upon such conditions as the Governor General in Council may by order provide, such conditions to be read as forming part of the Act.
The object of that amendment is to throw the responsibility upon the Governor General in Council of adopting the principle of the Bill. If the Bill is not a good one, the Governor General in Council will not bring it into force by his proclamation, and if he brings it into force, he can annex _ such conditions to it as he sees fit. But the promoters of the Bill did not adopt that suggestion in toto. They made a pretense of adopting it. The Bill as finally agreed to by the Private Bills Committee reads as follows:
10. The powers conferred upon the company by this Act shall not be exercisable until the company has first submitted to the Governor in Council plans of such works, and has received his assent thereto.
There is a vital difference between the amendment as suggested by the chairman of the Conservation Commission and that adopted by the Private Bills Committee. Under the clause that was suggested by Mr. Sifton in his letter to the Private Bills Committee, the responsibility of adopting the principle of the Bill is thrown upon the Governor in Council, whereas the amendment merely throws the responsibility upon him of assenting to certain plans. One is a question of principle, the other is merely a question of routine. As a matter of fact, when the company get their charter and their plans are submitted to the Governor General in Council, he merely consents to the plan. It is merely a matter of administration or routine, whereas the amendment suggested by the chairman of the Conservation Commission throws the responsibility of adopting the principle upon the Governor General in Council.	.


James Conmee: Do I understand the hon. member to advocate that this House should delegate to the Governor General in Council the policy to be adopted in regard to a matter of this kind? That would seem to

me to be a very peculiar policy to come from the opposition.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would say in answer to the hon. member for Rainy River


George Taylor: It comes from the chairman of the Conservation Commission.


Hon.  W. S.@: SHARPE-that this House is going to be asked to place in the estimates $50,000 to be placed at the disposal of this Conservation Commission. We are spending $50,000 to ascertain the best means of conserving our natural resources. A member of the Private Bills Committee has no means of ascertaining the true facts in connection with the Bill and cannot possibly pass an intelligent opinion upon it, but when the matter is left to the Governor General in Council, he can obtain the advice of the Conservation Commission and of their expert engineers. The Conservation Commission and the Governor General jn Council have money and engineers at their disposal, they can ascertain the true intent, meaning, purpose and objects of this company, and unless they are proper to be brought into operation, the provisions of the Bill need not be brought into operation, but the Governor General in Council has means at his command to ascertain these facts that a private member cannot possibly have.


James Conmee: The hon. member is willing to delegate all the powers of parliament, under such circumstances, to the Governor General in Council? I would like to have an answer to that point.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: We are willing to incorporate the company, and if it is a proper company to be brought into operation upon the conditions being ascertained, the Governor General in Council should assume the responsibility of bringing it into existence.


James Conmee: I do not think the hon. member will get many to support that principle.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Another amendment which the promoters of this Bill should accept is in connection with the rights of municipalities:
The company shall not enter within the limits of any municipality with any transmission line, or sell or distribute electrical or other power therein without the consent of such municipality expressed by by-law.
That was inserted last year in my hon. friend's Bill, the Ontario and Michigan Power Company Bill.


James Conmee: That is already in the general law of Ontario, chapter 5 of the Statutes of 1909.


James Conmee: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What has the Ontario legislature to do with this?	*


James Conmee: It has control over the municipalities and no company can distribute power in an Ontario municipality without its consent.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: This is a transmission line.


James Conmee: That is how power is sold.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman does not mean to say that the Ontario legislature can pass laws that will have superiority over the laws passed by this parliament?


James Conmee: No, I do not say that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If this Bill is allowed to pass in its present shape it will override provincial legislation and will invade municipal and provincial rights without the consent of these municipalities. This Bill says too that the plans shall be approved by the Governor General in Council, but it makes no provision for their publication so that the municipalities will have notice that the plans are being submitted to the Governor in Council. In an important matter of this kind where a transmission line will affect municipal and provincial rights, as this does, the plans should be published in the local newspapers in the municipalities affected, and announcement should be made that the plans will be considered bv the Governor in Council and that the different interests will be heard before they are finally approved by the railway board.
Another amendment which I would propose is in connection with the question of provincial rights. This amendment was suggested in the Private Bills Committee and voted down by the friends of the promoters:
Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to authorize the company to enter on, take or use any land or water, the property of any province, without having first obtained by order in council of the Lieutenant Governor the- consent of the province to such entry, taking or user.
That protects provincial rights and there should be a similar clause to protect municipal rights. Before the Private Bills Committee the representatives of Montreal protested vigorously


Mr. M. MARTIN.: And we are here again for that clause.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Because this Bill in its present form gives the company power to enter Montreal and expropriate a right of way without the consent of the citv of Montreal. That is an extraordinary power

to be contained in such a Bill and the representatives of Montreal were quite right to appear before the Private Bills Committee and oppose it in its present form. There should be a clause to protect not only the provinces but the municipalities as well.
If the preamble carries and the Bill is discussed I purpose moving one or two amendments and discussing it further but at the same time I desire to register my general opposition to the whole Bill. My. main reason is that it is duplicating the very line the Hydro-Electric Commission purpose taking in connection with the wide and comprehensive policy the commission has adopted for transmitting power to the municipalities.


Mr. J. D. REID.: When the Bill was before the Private Bills Committee the promoters made it a special point that this transmission line was to be constructed to furnish power to Prescott and Brock-ville. When it was before the Private Bills Committee I suggested that a clause should be inserted providing that work was to be commenced within one year from the time the Bill was passed and to be completed within three years. The Private Bills Committee, however, inserted clause 15, providing:
This Act shall go into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
Suppose we pass . this Bill in its present shape, then they may not commence this transmission line for a number of years and this will prevent others from building a line and furnishing power to Prescott, Brockville and other municipalities.


An hon. MEMBER.: Why?


John Dowsley Reid: The very fact of our passing this Bill will prevent others from building a transmission line. I would ask the committee to change clause 15 and to make it read that they must commence work within one year. This line can be built in two or three months and I submit that it is not fair to tie up the power that could be supplied to Prescott and Brockville by other_parties who have waterpower.


James Conmee: How does it tie up the power, what clause in the Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: In this way that this parliament grants another company power to build a transmission line. There is not sufficient power required at Prescott and Brockville to warrant two companies building transmission lines to supply that demand. If this company will agree to build a transmission line immediately and furnish power that is satisfactory to Prescott and Brockville; we want power 169
at these places. The St. Lawrence Company at Cornwall have plenty of power, they have admitted that at the Private Bills Committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. gentleman say that if the Bill is amended so that they shall commence the work within one year the opposition to the Bill will be withdrawn?


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I am concerned, if they will agree to that my opposition is ended so far as that clause is concerned; but I also submit that the amendment suggested by JMr. S. Sharpe should be inserted, that is to protect provincial rights. The hon. member (Mr. Pardee) was quite willing in the Private Bills Committee to insert a clause that this company should not take property belonging to the municipality without the leave of the municipality.


Mr. PARDEE.: No.


John Dowsley Reid: That clause is in the Bill.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is provided for in the Railway Act.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) is willing that this company shall not expropriate municipal property without the consent of the municipality why should he not insert a clause in the Bill that they shall not expropriate provincial property without the consent of the province?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Section 47, subsection 5, of the Railway Act absolutely protects the municipality.


John Dowsley Reid: It protects the municipality, but not the province.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: You do not agree with the member for Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), who said the municipalities were not protected.


John Dowsley Reid: If the amendment of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) is parsed, and also an amendment that they shall commence within one year and complete within three years I shall be satisfied.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend (Mr. Reid) objects to the Bill unless it provides that the construction shall be completed within a certain period, because otherwise, he says, other corporations, may be prevented from giving a service to the people; and my hon. friend from North Ontario taking an opposite view does not want the Bill passed because he says it will be an interference with the plans of the Hydro-Electric Commission. Let these two gentlemen reconcile their divergent views. As I do not belong to the province of Ontario, I



may be able to give ail imoartial opinion from the standpoint of an outsider. I cannot agree with the hon. member (Mr. Sharpe) as to the many benefits to be derived by the province of Ontario from the operations of the Hydro-Electric Commission. True, I have not made a careful study of the matter, but during the last ten years I have had considerable experience with water-powers, and I have yet to see a case wherein competition has made electricity dearer. I do not see what harm can come to the municipalities along the river St. Lawrence from having just as many transmission lines as possible, because I believe the result will be cheaper electricity to the people, and less profit to the company. In my province a man would be drummed out of public life who would do anything to prevent an electric company or a railway company from spending money, and1 placing thesi utilities- within reach of the people. If the amendment of the hon. member (Mr. Sharpe) should be adopted the promoter of this Bill might as well fold up his papers and withdraw it. There is no use disguising the fact that the opposition to this Bill is being put up by the Hydro-Electric Commission or their friends. It is the same old bogie we meet whenever water-powers have been mentioned in this House for the last five or six years. Every time you talk water-power you will find this Hydro-Electric Commission objecting, and why? It is in order to maintain for themselves an absolute monopoly of all electric energy in the province of Ontario, and from that policy I dissent. I do not believe in monopolies by private individuals, corporations, or provincial governments, and I do not believe it is in the best interests of the people of Ontario that the Hydro-Electric Commission should have the monopoly of all electric energy.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the hon. member aware that the Hydro-Electric Commission constructs these lines and charges the municipalities with the mere cost of construction, plus a small sum? What objection can there be to monopoly in such a case as that?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, and I have been told that the Hydro-Electric Commission makes the municipality pay for peak loads which they may only use once in a year.


John Dowsley Reid: You are wrongly informed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not by any means, and they grant monopolies for thirty years in order to prevent any one-else getting into the cities, and they pretend to sell horsepower for $25 when as a matter of fact the cost amounts to $60 or $70.


John Dowsley Reid: That is not right.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: '


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Just mention such a case


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Wait a moment, my hon. friend from Westmorland had to call you down this afternoon. This commission pretends to sell electricity at a low rate, but that only means the charge for it at the substation outside the municipality, and then they have to pay their share of the cost of transmission lines, and the cost of transforming, and the cost of distribution, and the cost of different other things which sometimes amounts to $60, and $70 per horse-power.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Give an instance where the Hydro-Electric Commission stated they would furnish electricity for $25 per horse-power and charged $60 or" $70.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The town of Stratford is one, and the town of Ingersoll is another.


An hon. MEMBER.: And the town of Galt.


Mr. S. HUGHES.: What does Stratford pay?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As near as I can figure it out, it is $60 or $75 per horse-power.


Samuel Hughes: It is $29.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh yes, but that is only at the outside station. The hon. gentleman wants to get acquainted with this business. They have to pay for different other things which adds to the cost. To come back to the Bill-my hon. friend (Mr. Reid) is mistaken as to the Railway Act with reference to municipalities. The Railway Act does not provide; that a municipality can by its mere ipse dixit refuse to allow an electric company to do business within its borders. Subsection 5 of section 24 provides that if the company cannot obtain the consent from a municipality, the company may apply to the board for leave to exercise the power, and upon such application it shall present a plan of the highway, square, or other public place, showing its powers in this territory, subject to whatever conditions they may consider fair. My hon. friend (Mr. Reid) vdll see that a municipality, under that Act, has not the absolute right to exclude an electric power company. But if the amendment of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) should be adopted, it would give the province of Ontario the absolute right to exclude this company from any portion of the public domain of that province; and we may assume that the province, exercising the policy to which it is committed at present, would absolutely prevent this undertaking from going

on, and the whole thing would become a nullity.


John Dowsley Reid: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to argue that this Bill would give this transmission line power, under the Railway Act, to enter a municipality and do business there in so far as the furnishing of electric light is concerned?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. Under the Railway .Act this company would have the right to go on the public streets or otner places in a municipality with its consent; but if it could not make a satisfactory arrangement with the municipality, it would have the right to apply to the railway board, and that board would grant its application subject to conditions. The company is obliged to go to the municipality first, but if the municipality will not be reasonable, it can apply to the railway board which has authority to act. If, however, the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) were adopted, the province of Ontario would have the right to absolutely forbid this company from crossing its property, and that would be the end of the whole transaction.


John Dowsley Reid: I understood in the Private Bills Committee that the intention was that whenever this company desired to enter or pass through a municipality the municipality alone would have the power to grant or refuse permission, and I understood that the promoters of the Bill were willing to have it amended in that sense.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The question arose as to what right should be given the company to enter a municipality. It was thought that if the Bill were passed as drawn, in which section 247 of the Railway Act was to apply only where applicable, that possibly there might be lack of definiteness; upon the request of one of the members of the committee, who was opposed to the Bill, section 247 was made to refer specifically to the matter of crossing or going through a municipality.


William Sora Middlebro: 
John Dowsley Reid: 
Frederick Forsyth Pardee: This Bill is in the same form as that in which it came from the committee, where it was absolutely satisfactory to all the members, even my hon. friend.


John Dowsley Reid: No, it was not.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think the hon. member for Ontario contended that what the terms of this Bill should be and when it should go into operation should be settled by the Governor in Council. Of course, that was an absolutely novel and unique proposition. It simply meant leaving to the Governor in Council the right to legislate absolutely for the whole House, and was a proposition utterly untenable. Consequently we put in clause 15 to provide that the Act should come into force on the day fixed in the proclamation of the Governor in Council, and that clause is to be read

in conjunction with the one dealing with the plans and specifications. The clause relating to municipalities was struck out in committee, and it was agreed to by every member of the committee that section 247 of the Railway Act absolutely protected the municipalities. As regards municipal and provincial rights, which we hear so much of to-day, if you were to put a provision in the Bill such as hon. gentlemen opposite desire, you would put it into the hands of a province or a municipality to stop the construction of the work at any minute. Even if we were at our last link and putting up our last pole, the province or a municipality might prohibit our going a step further. Suppose this company had expended large sums of money arid suppose, at the completion of that work, it were necessary to put a pole or wire along the bed of a stream, and the province were to refuse to give us that power, we would be absolutely out of court and might just as well have thrown our money into the deep sea. It is all very well to talk of provincial rights, but surely there are some Dominion rights. Surely we have the right to give companies which we incorporate the power to carry on the works we have authorized them to do.


Mr. BRODER.: Would the hon. member give them the power to expropriate Dominion lands without the consent of the Dominion government?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: We aTe discussing provincial lands, just now.


Andrew Broder: That is a point I would like the hon. member to settle. They cannot, under this Bill, expropriate Dominion lands-


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But put the converse question, and would it be fair the other way? Two wrongs do not make a right. _ It is the Dominion parliament that is doing this.


Andrew Broder: Then my suggestion would be, either take away this right that was given them over provincial land, or give them the power over Dominion lands.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: This parliament is asked to give rights within its jurisdiction. To say that before we give these rights that are within our jurisdiction we must go to the province and ask them if we may do so would be to render the granting of a charter here clearly ridiculous. So far as municipalities are concerned, they are absolutely protected under subsection 5 of section 247 which provides that if the company cannot obtain consent from the municipal council or other authority-which clearly show's that, in the first place they must go to the municipality to obtain that consent-then the Board of Railway Commissioners is empowered to step in and Mr. PARDEE.
say under what conditions they shall come in with their line. Surely, the municipality is protected under that. It is also provided under subsection 8 that nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to authorize a company to exercise the powers conferred upon it for the purpose of selling or distributing light, heat, power or electricity in cities, towns or villages unless the company has first obtained the consent of the municipality by bylaw to that effect.


Samuel Hughes: Could not they sell to some one who would step in and sell?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: They cannot distribute without a by-law.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, they can.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think not.


Samuel Hughes: I would remind the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) that in the London Bill the other day, we put in a special clause to cover that very point.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think it was entirely surplusage-it merely cumbered the Bill. My hon. friend from NSrth Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe) talks about the gravity of the situation and about natural resources. Within the four corners of this Bill, water-powers are not mentioned. This is nothing more, and it is nothing less than a transmission line, pure and simple. You say, this is part of a larger scheme. But this committee must recollect that, if the company incorporated by this Bill cannot get the power to distribute-and, as I understand it, they have to come to this parliament for that-then the whole Bill is absolutely of no use to them. How, then, can the public be prejudiced, how can any one's rights be interferred with by the granting of a charter for a transmission line alone? So far as the Hydro-Electric Commission is concerned, it is very well to say that for six or seven years they have been contemplating coming in. I venture to say that, so far as the municipalities affected by this Bill are concerned, you will not find one man in fifty-not^ one man in a hundred-who, if there is a chance of having power transmitted by a bona fide company, will not hold up both hands for it. No municipality would think for a moment of getting in the road of competition in the distribution of electrical power, the same as competition in anything else. There is no reason why the Hydro-Electric Power Commission should be in a position to say to the people of this eastern portion of the province that they will come or stay awrny as they please, .but that, in the meantime, even though a bona fide company comes and proposes to distribute the power this parliament shall not grant the necessary authority. As to this argument of a dual system why it answers itself. Whether dual, treble or quadruple

-the more competition you have the better for the people. I submit that, so far as the argument against this Bill is concerned, my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe) and my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) in their endeavour to find objection, in their supersensitiveness to objections, have really bumped into each other. This Bill was objected to as vigorously as possible in committee.
My hon. friend from North Ontario told us, to use his own terms, that the Conservation Commission would protect the rights of the people. The Bill went to the Conservation Commission; we had no objection to that. It came back with a letter, which the hon. gentleman has read, from the chairman of that commission. And the hon. member (Mr. S. Sharpe) himself says that with one exception, the provisions of the Bill were cut out. It is true, nearly the whole Bill was cut out, But we felt that, if the Conservation Commission thought these clauses should come out-that there was danger, that there was somethin# lurking here not visible to the naked eye-we would take out these provisions. And we did take them out, down to the last suggestion in the letter of Mr. Sifton, the chairman of that commission. Surely, we have gone as far as it is possible to go. Every objection has been met, and every right safeguarded. The promoters of this Bill are asking nothing in the way of waterpower, they are not touching the natural resources of Ontario, they are here simply asking for a transmission line to run through certain counties and cities, And if they get the current to transmit, well and good, if not, so far as I can see, it is absolutely their own lookout.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I desire to say a word here, largely for the purpose of securing information. I have not followed the Bill; I was not a member of the committee before which it was heard and considered. But I had supposed that this Bill was a preliminary to some other Bill that might, within the very near future, be brought under the consideration of thi3 House. That is, I had supposed that this parliament would have under consideration at this session a Bill which would be a counterpart of a Bill passed by the legislature of the state of New York. Now, what I wish to know is this: Is it not within the knowledge of some hon. members of this committee that the authority to dam the St. Lawrence is at this moment held by a company, which company is associated with this power transmission company?


John Dowsley Reid: Same crowd.


Henry Robert Emmerson: As I understand it, some time in the nineties, a company was incorporated by the parliament of Canada with power to dam the St. Lawrence, and
that this company did exercise its powers in part. They have built a dam, and have generated power, and the Cornwall canal, and other establishments in that vicinity are to-day enjoying, I believe, the benefits accruing therefrom. We have heard, in times past, in this parliament a great deal of discussion with respect to that company, and concerning contracts entered into between them and the government of Canada. And, if I understand it, that company is a part and parcel of this company, and that the danger in connection with this Bill is because the parliament of Canada has already given the powers to generate electrical energy by damming the St. Lawrence, and that the original company has since changed hands. That company, I understand, did not have the powers necessary for the, transmission of the energy in many directions. Therefore it is they come here for these large powers which thev consider requisite and in connection with which they will exercise the powers already given by this parliament. The point to which I would invite your attention in this debate is this: I have in my hands a copy of the Bill passed by the New York state legislature, and when we know that in giving these powers to a company having the same purpose in view they insisted upon that company only exercising that- power for a consideration, I wonder why it is that the parliament of Canada is willing to grant this stupendous franchise for nothing. You say that is not involved in this Bill. I say that it is, because if there is any ground for suspicion that this privilege is to be exercised in conjunction with a company that we incorporated years ago in this parliament, it is time this parliament should halt and inquire how far the powers which we then gave to that original company are to be exercised. That great American company, in the exercise of their powers must pay into the state of New York a large sum of money annually. The very first tax upon them is $10,000. The purpose of the Bill is thus set forth:
An Act to incorporate the Long Sanlt Development Company, and to authorize said company to construct and maintain dams, canals, power-houses and locks at or near the Long Sault island for the purpose of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence river and developing power from the waters thereof, and to construct and maintain a bridge, and carry on the manufacture of commodities.
Now that is the company which is incorporated by the state of New York. It can exercise all the powers and rights that they wish in connection with that portion of the River St. Lawrence which flows over American territory. They could not come oyer across the boundary iine into the Canadian waters of that river, and therefore it was necessary for them to secure the same powers in this parliament I apprehend

that they soon discovered that there was a company that had all the powers that were necessary and that were granted at a time when the full exercise of those powers was not realized. Now, as lion, members who live down in that section will know much better than I do,' there has been a dam constructed by that company on the Canadian side. If they will refer to the original Act they will find that company has powers which are still unexercised and which may be exercised in connection with other dams. For instance, they have a power-I am now speaking subject to correction, because I have not studied the Bill-they have power to construct a dam in connection with this company which has been incorporated by the state of New York. A company incorporated a few years ago by this parliament has the power to build in conjunction with the American company a dam for its purposes on the St. Lawrence river.


Robert Smith: They have no such power.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am informed they have. I am informed that those powers have been granted by this parliament. If that is a fact, I cannot vote for this Bill, because I see lurking in it a menace to Canadian interests. If, however, it can be shown to me that this is merely a transmission line for power that may be generated under the authority which they are yet to secure from this parliament or some other legislative body then I would not have any great objection to this Bill.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: They only have the right to import, not to export, even suppose they had those powers he speaks of.


John Dowsley Reid: I see no advantage in it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Mv hon. friend misapprehends my point. Not with respect to expropriation, because that is regulated; even though they had the power, I understand that could be regulated. If the parliament of Canada can realize that they had granted powers which they did not contemplate would be exercised in the way that it is now proposed to exercise them, then it is time for us to consider how far we should supplement the powers which we have already given to a company which controls the rights which were granted by the parliament of Canada twenty years ago.


An hon. MEMBER.: How does this Bill affect that?


Henry Robert Emmerson: If that company got certain powers by that original Act to dam the St. Lawrence, but has no power of Mr. EMMERSON.
transmission in Canada and cannot exercise that power without our supplementing it, and giving through the medium of this Act advantages and franchises which are of value, then we can well understand why they are coming here now and seeking these privileges. Therefore I say that this parliament should hesitate, they should at least enact this legislation with their eyes open. If it were true, and could be demonstrated to parliament that, without realizing the full extent of the po-wers which they gave in the Bill of 1901-I think that was the year.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. member for West Lambton would be able to tell us what the date was.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: About 1894.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It must be ten years ago. There must be some limitation to it.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They have exercised their rights and they have built a dam.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: There is no dam there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman may be confusing that with the contract that was given to M. P. Davis and Company, for all the surplus power of the Cornwall canal for 84 years, and which was entered into about 1896. There was a renewal when the present government came into power. It was for 21 years', and it was renewed for four times, and although he had control of that power he could not distribute it without the power to construct a distribution line. It may be in connection with that, although there is another power company in addition to that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: There is another power company in addition to that, a dam was built, the company is in existence to-day, and I am informed that it is controlled by this great American syndicate that have acquired permission from the legislature of New York state, and are now seeking powers from this parliament to enable them to complete their great scheme of controlling the powers of the St. Lawrence river in connection with the Long Sault dams. If these facts are true, surely we, as a parliament, should have respect enough for ourselves to hold our powers in as high esteem as the legislature of the state of New York place upon the powers that they have to grant. When the scheme is consummated, and when they construct these dams and create these powers what will be the result? The state of New York will be receiving annually a very large sum of money from the company. The province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada will not get one cent -no, they will not even get 'thank you '

for it. This company of American capitalists will simply laugh at the parliament of Canada for being so guileless as to grant these powers without a thought as to the full effect and force of the powers that they have thus granted. That is the point I raise and it seems to me we should hesitate in a matter of this kind and at least learn as to whether there is a basis for these statements which are openly made. I had heard of opposition to this measure. I had read in the Toronto papers and the papers of Canada generally of the opposition to this transmission power Bill. I could not understand why there should be such serious objection to the incorporation of a company of this character for the purpose of transmitting power. If they had no power to transmit they would have to purchase it from somebody else. But that did not involve interference with the waters of the St. Lawrence. It in no way affected anybody's rights to transmit this power. They had to acquire it, they had to purchase it from somebody and distribute it. I therefore assumed that the objection to the Bill arose from the fact that there was in contemplation an application to the parliament of Canada along the lines of the successful application that was made to the state legislature of New York for a consideration, and that the applicants would be here seeking the powers which were given to their sister corporation in the state of New York.


Mr. JAMESON.: In what year was the power given, by the legislature of New York state?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Several years ago. Reference can be had to it in the statutes, but I have a typewritten memorandum in regard to it


Andrew Broder: Are these the people that propose to construct a dam at the Long Sault?


Henry Robert Emmerson: At the Long Sault, 1 did not think that this transmission Bill was a dangerous Bill until information *came to me from a reliable source. I was not interested, I am not now in any way interested in the matter only as a member *of this committee, and therefore I have no connection with it. But information came to me to the effect that this transmission power company had rights in connection with the St. Lawrence under powers that were granted to a former company, a company which they now control, and which will be incorporated as part of their scheme in connection with this transmission power company, should they secui'e legislation from the parliament of Canada. If there is any truth in it, if there is any basis of foundation for these statements, then I say that it would be the duty of every
Canadian to say: No, we will not grant to you gentlemen these powers that you want; we, it is true, granted to you certain powers in connection with the building of dams on the St. Lawrence, but we did not contemplate that anything of this kind would take place; we did not contemplate, when we gave you these powers, that it would result in interference with the navigation of the St. Lawrence, which will be effected as a national scheme; we did not take that into consideration; you have all these powers given to you for this purpose that are no good to you unless you get this supplementary legislation that you are coming here and asking for; it is true that we might impose upon you terms such as the New York state legislature imposed upon you, but we are going to hesitate to grant you any of these powers until at least a full and complete understanding is had with respect to the objects that you have in view, what your purposes are, how far you propose to interfere with that international stream, and how far you propose to affect Canada in relation to her position as a co-user of the waters of the St. Lawrence. These are matters of supreme moment, these are matters which the government of Canada certainly should take into consideration before this Bill takes many steps forward in this parliament. If there is nothing in what I am stating, if these statements that are made by men of responsibility, are not true, then, of course, it is only a question of the incorporation of a transmission power company which is stated to have been properly safeguarded by the committee. But I think it goes further, and I think that lurking about it is a something that shows, when there is so much interest in' it, and when there are so many great American capitalists interested in it, that this Bill is worthy of inquiry on the part of parliament, that this parliament should hesitate before taking a leap in the dark, before committing itself to the disposal of powers that will be used to the advantage of a foreign country and to the detriment of our own.


Andrew Broder: I wish to make a few remarks in reference to this Bill. There has been a good deal said about the HydroElectric Commission of Ontario. The hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) seems to know just what they are charging here, there and everywhere. He must have got his inspiration from the hon. member for Rainy River. That hon. gentleman has locked horns with that commission in Port Arthur, and I think he came out of the struggle with the horns off. The people there, had a chance to pronounce on his scheme in connection with the Ontario and Michigan Power Company and the Hydro-Electric Commission. Port


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then you force every one to come under the Hydro-Electric Commission and make it a monopoly?


Andrew Broder: You are making it much deaTer. I think the province should have a right to say whether these people shall be permitted to put up poles or: towers on property of the province. Subsection 4 of section II provides:
Wherever in the Railway Act the word 'land ' occurs, it shall include any privilege or easement required by the company for constructing or operating the works authorized by this Act, under, over or along any land, without the necessity of acquiring a title in fee simple.
Is that a fair thing, to say that these people shall run their lines over head over any man's premises without being obliged to buy the right of way?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Read subsection 6 of that clause.


Andrew Broder: That does not overrride this.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes it does.


Andrew Broder: Then we might strike out clause 4. There have been lawsuits in Montreal with the Power, Heat and Light Company to determine this matter. There should be no doubt as to the rights of individuals over whose lands they pass. The ordinary man in the country cannot go to law with a great corporation with millions behind it. For that reason, it seems to me it should be made so plain that there would be no doubt as to the rights of the

company so far as these matters are concerned. If a motion is not moved by some one else, I shall propose one later that will amend clause 12. It seems to me that the right of the provinces in respect to property under their control should be protected.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I merely wish to enter my earnest protest against the Bill passing in its present form. It certainly interferes with provincial and municipal rights, and the Hydro-Electric Commission are opposed to it. The chairman of the Conservation Commission has been utterly opposed to it, and very few of the clauses which the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) gave us to understand were struck out in compliance with that request seem to have been struck out. In the HydroElectric Power Commission's report No. 4, on page 21, will be found a table of estimated annual charges, on fully developed generating plants in the very same towns through which these lines are liable to pass.
Transmission of Power.
In connection with the hydraulic developments in the Ottawa Vallay and that portion of the province bordering on the St. Lawrence river, four transmission schemes have been considered, viz., one, 20,000 volts, three phase, from Iroquois through Prescott to Brock-ville; one, 30,000 volts, three phase (scheme A), from High Palls through Perth and Smiths Falls to Brockville, Prescott and Carleton Place; one, 20,000 volts, three phase (scheme B), from High Falls through Perth and Smiths Falls, terminating at Carleton Place; one, 20,000 volts, three phase, from Fountain Falls through the Cobalt mining district, terminating at Haileybury.
In the following estimates, the use of high class wooden poles with concrete bases is assumed, the telephone line being mounted on the same poles.
It gives a thorough estimate of the cost of the line. The commission has at present under consideration a proposition similar to that contained in the Bill which it is sought to force through the House. The member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) in his wisdom, told the people of Ontario what they should do about this matter, and he said the town of Galt would have to pay $5 per horsepower. If you will turn to the first report of the Hydro-Electric Commission you will find that the cost of twenty-four horsepower in the town of Galt for the full load would only be $17.35 , for three-quarters load $17.79, and for half load $19.90. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) also said that the town of Stratford would have to pay $75 per horse-power, and no doubt he was prompted to say these things by some of his friends on the other side, because you will not find many men in Ontario who will get up to condemn the action of the HydroElectric Commission, and their splendid administration of their affairs. Now, in
Stratford the cost of twenty-four horsepower for a full load is $20.48, for a three-quarters load $21.41, and for half a load $24.04. The above cost of power is based on the estimated rate of $12 per twenty-four horse-power per annum for high tension power at Niagara Falls. I call the attention of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) to these facts just to show that his statement is absurd.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the Hydro-Electric Commission selling a single horse-power at Stratford at the prices quoted by the hon. gentleman?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman knows they are not in a position to sell power up to the present time, but that is a carefully prepared estimate by expert engineers of the cost at which these different municipalities will be supplied, and on which they have accepted the building of a transmission line. The hon. member fot Westmorland stated that he had in his possession a Bill which was passed by the New York legislature showing that they had absolute control of water-powers in that state, and along the boundary line. Why should the people in the province of Ontario be interfered with in this regard and why should they not expect that a reasonable . amount of money should be collected from these transmission lines. I quote from ' Hansard ' the speech of the hon. member for Westmorland:
I have received, on an application which I made some weeks ago, a copy of a Bill passed by the legislature of the state of New York, being ' an Act to incorporate the Long Sault Development Company, and to authorize said company to construct and maintain dams, canals, power-houses and locks at or near Long Sault island, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence river and developing power from the waters thereof, and to construct and maintain a bridge and carry on the manufacture of commodities.' Having a copy of that Bill m my hand, I will call the attention of the committee to this fact, that in the very inception the company is required ' to pay into the treasury of the state the fixed sum of $10,000, and m addition to the payment just mentioned, the company shall pay into the treasury of the state for the year 1910 the fixed sum of $15,000, and for the year 1911 the fixed sum of $20,000. For each year after 1911 the said corporation shall pay at the following rates upon the average amount of electrical horse-power generated during such year under the authority of this Act, that is to say: upon all amounts up to 25,000 electrical liorse-power, at the rate of 75 cents per horse-power ; upon all amounts in excess of 25,000 electrical horsepower and up to 100,000 horse-power, at the rate of 50 cents per liorse-power; _ upon all amounts in excess of 100,000 electrical horsepower, at the rate of 25 cents per horsepower. In case said corporation shall generate or develop water-power as mechanical power without transmuting the same into electrical power, then for so much of said

water-power as may be developed payments shall be made at the above mentioned rates per mechanical horse-power/
Well, that is a practical common sense business arrangement, and the province of Ontario is perfectly justified in claiming, so far as the transmission of power to that section of the country is concerned, that they should have something to say in regard to what they would like to collect from that company, and, how they would like to control the transmission of power in that district. I shall certainly vote against the Bill as it is at present framed.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I beg to inform the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Car-Veil) that the estimates that have been quoted by my hon. friend (Mr. Armstrong) were carefully prepared by the engineers of the Hydro-Electric Commission, and since then contracts have been let by the HydroElectric Commission, and it is found that they will be able to supply these municipalities with power at a cost much less than that estimated by the engineers. I have here the St. Lawrence Power Company's Act of incorporation, 1901, and I call the attention of the hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) to this clause:
The company may-
(a)	manufacture, use, supply and dispose of electricity, water and gas, and water, hydraulic or other power by means of wires, cables, pipes, conduits, machinery or other appliances; and construct, maintain and operate works for the production, sale and distribution thereof, and for the purposes aforesaid may construct, acquire, use, maintain and operate canals, water courses, raceways and water-powers in or adjacent to the St. Lawrence river, on the north side thereof, at any points eastward from Ifoople's creek, in the county of Stormont, in the province of Ontario, to the eastern end of the Soulanges canal, and construct dams, wing-dams, sluices, conduits and buildings in connection therewith : provided 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;
(b)	acquire patent rights, letters patent of invention, processes, options and other rights and privileges and again dispose thereof;
(c)	manufacture, acquire and dispose of pulpwood, pulp or the products thereof;
(d)	manufacture and sell calcium carbide and all products produced in its manufacture; acetylene gas and other gases and products manufactured from calcium carbide;
(e)	manufacture and deal in all minerals and the by-products thereof; construct furnaces, ovens and retorts for the reduction of such minerals;
(f)	construct tramways, wharfs, docks, offices and all necessary buildings, and purchase, hire, build and repair vessels required for the business of the company;
(g)	construct, acquire and operate by electricity, steam or other motive power, vessels for the trans])ortation of passengers and freight, or towing of barges or other vessels in the River St. Lawrence and the lakes, canals and rivers connected therewith.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That gives them all the power they want. I understand the St. Lawrence Power Company have disposed of their rights and interests to the promoters of this Bill. When we read section 9 of the Act of 1901 we can learn why the present promoters are not applying for an extension of the rights under this Act of 1901, and it is for the simple reason that the Act of 1901 provides that they shall not exercise rights in any municipality without first obtaining the consent of the municipality. Section 9 reads:
9. 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 public place, and as often as the company thinks proper, may, with the like consent, break up and open any highway or public place.
Under the Act of 1901 they must get the consent of the municipality but under the Bill now before the House they will have expropriation powers without the consent of the municipality. So we can readily understand why they are not asking for ail extension of powers under the original Act of 1901. They are simply a subsidiary company getting distribution powers under the Railway Act and with full powers to expropriate, which they could not obtain if they were to ask an extension of these powers. They could in that case only exercise these powers and privileges with the consent of the municipalities. In view of the many objections raised, not only by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) but by many others, I think that this Bill should be referred back to the private Bills committee for further consideration. I move therefore that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Robert Smith: I desire more particularly to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Westmorland because he is labouring under an entire delusion as to what has occurred. He is under the impression that this company had obtained the power to build dams and had actually constructed them. There is no foundation for that statement. It never acquired any power to build a dam, it, has no power to dam any part of the St. Lawrence river, and has not built any dam. The dams to which my hon. friend refers are the famous Sheiks island dams which are a part of the Cornwall canal, and were constructed by the Dominion government. The construction of those dams and the building of the Cornwall canal developed incidentally a certain amount of waterpower. That water-power belongs to the Dominion, as a part of the Cornwall canal, and was leased by the Dominion government to the St. Lawrence Power Company.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is not that owned by this company?


Robert Smith: No, it- is owned by tlie Dominion of Canada and is held under lease. The water-power generated by those dams in the Cornwall canal is under lease to this company. '


Henry Robert Emmerson: And the company is owned by these parties.


Robert Smith: They have no right to generate any other power except what is developed by the construction of these works by the Dominion government. My hon. friend might just as well refer to all the other powers leased along the Cornwall and Welland canals. At the towh of Cornwall, the various mills have obtained by lease from the Dominion government water-powers which are developed by drawing water from the canal. The St. Lawrence Power Company do the same thing. They draw water from the canal at a point further up and discharge into the river.


James Conmee: What do they pay?


Robert Smith: $1,000 a year That was a bargain entered into by hon. gentlemen opposite when in power. The dams were constructed during the regime of the Conservative party, and were leased to Mr. Davis prior to the change.


Mr. BLAIN.: And renewed by the present administration some years ago.


Robert Smith: Yes. The hon. gentleman has referred to the Bill obtained from the New York State legislature authorizing a certain American company to dam the St. Lawrence, and he assumes that, that confers upon that company the power to dam a portion of the St. Lawrence, That is not the case at all. It requires the assent of the federal government of this country coupled with the authority of the State of New York, to authorize the damming of the St. Lawrence, because the St. Lawrence is a navigable stream.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. gentleman not know that there is a Bill at present before the House of representatives confirming the law of the State of New York and the damming of the St. Lawrence-Bill No. 14531.


Robert Smith: I do not see how that affects the argument. The federal government at Washington and the New York State government combined could not dam the St. Lawrence without the consent of Canada. Canada must be consulted.


Mr. GEO.: TAYLOR, Canada has been consulted and has given her consent.


Robert Smith: No, she has not. The only application made to Canada is the application which is before the International Waterways Commission. This company has applied to the joint commission for a recommendation, so far as that commission can give it. The International
Waterways Commission has been investigating that application for some .two years. The proposition was first referred to a certain board of engineers to investigate and report. That board reported that the plan was feasible, but the International Waterways Commission is still considering the question. It is to hold shortly ajiother sitting and take further evidence and proposes to have further investigation by engineers. The result is that there is no danger whatever, such as the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) contemplates, of any power being given for the damming of the St. Lawrence without first obtaining the consent of this parliament.


Andrew Broder: This International Waterways Commission is supposed to pronounce either for or against. Their decision will only affect our legislation because the Americans are acting independently of it. Have they not already got the consent of their own branch of the commission?


Robert Smith: I understand that the American branch of the commission have reported to their authorities in favour of the scheme and that may affect the American federal legislation. But the Canadian branch has not, and the Canadian branch is conducting this investigation. What the final report may be, nobody knows; but no matter what may bo the report of the commission, that has no effect as law. Nothing can have effect without the consent of this parliament, so that there is absolutely no danger of this damming scheme becoming the law of this country or of any one obtaining the privilege of damming the St. Lawrence until a Bill to that effect passes this House. The present Bill is solely for a transmission line. Hon. gentlemen opposite say that the company expect to get power to transmit over this line through this particular scheme. No doubt if they succeed in obtaining the consent of parliament to dam the St. Lawrence, they will. But they can get the power elsewhere. Power can be developed from the Long Sault rapids without this scheme going through in its entirety, and for that reason the transmission line may be a necessity and may be useful, quite independent of the scheme of damming the St. Lawrence. A very large amount of power has already been developed at this point. There is the power scheme first started by English capitalists in American territory. The Americans did not object at all to English capital going in and developing their own power. The Englishmen were unfortunate enough to lose all their money, and the works they had constructed went over to a new company. That work has been completed and a very large development is taking place from the Long Sault rapids. A considerable development is taking

place on the Canadian side by means of the works of the Canadian government, and further development is possible without the actual damming of the river, but the large scheme would be carried out by the damming of the St. Lawrence. For that reason I do not see why hon. gentlemen should be so much alarmed about the effects of this Bill. The Bill itself can confer no other Tights than are contained in it, and those are simply and solely for the construction of a transmission line from Montreal to Kingston. I do not see why the Ontario government should be consulted. As will be seen at once, the Ontario government, and the branch of that government known as the Hydro-Electric Commission, take the stand that any opposition to their schemes or their possible schemes should not be allowed by this parliament. And if they can stop any other scheme, no doubt, with the views they entertain, they will stop it. It was admitted bv Mr. Staunton, when arguing in the Private Bills Committee on behalf of the Ontario government, that that government claimed the right of property in the bed of all streams. They claim that they own the soil under the bed of the St. Lawrence river. That is confirmed, I believe by the Privy Council. There are several streams that would have to be crossed by this line, and the pro-, vincial government could, under the amendment suggested, step in and say: You must not plant a pole in the bed of that stream; you must not lay the foundation of a tower. And, entertaining the views they do, that every possible scheme in opposition to the Hydro-Electric Commission must be squelched and killed, it follows, as a matter of course, that, under the amendment proposed, this scheme could be nipped at many points between the boundary of Quebec and Kingston.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. member name a stream that would require a pole in the middle of its bed?


Robert Smith: Yes, at the city of Kingston, crossing the mouth of the Rideau river.


Samuel Hughes: The Rideau does not flow there.


Robert Smith: What is the stream there?


Robert Smith: There is Cataraqui creek; you could jump across it.
Mr. ROBERT SMITH There is the one over which a bridge about a quarter of a mile long is carried, the bridge that the troops have to cross in going from the city of Kingston to the camp ground.


Robert Smith: 


John Dowsley Reid: It is not a hundred feet wide.


Samuel Hughes: It is not fifty.


Robert Smith: There is a very long bridge there.


Samuel Hughes: There is no line across there.


Robert Smith: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) perhaps, does not understand that is not the only right the government might have. If the Ontario government own the bed of a stream, they have a right to prevent a line crossing that stream in the air. You cannot run a line, as a matter of law, across a man's land without buying that right, even though it does not touch his land. The same principle would apply to the property of the Ontario government in the stream.


Richard Blain: Why should the Ontario government's rights be interfered with?


Robert Smith: For the same reason that the Ontario government's rights are not considered when any other great national undertaking is going on. For instance if we wished to build a railroad from Montreal to Kingston, we would not consider the Ontario government. And the transmission of power to-day is growing as important to the people as the building of a railway. And, when we have a transmission line that is of national or interprovincial importance, the parliament of Canada has the power to provide for that line, and they ought to exercise that power in their discretion.


Mr. TURRIFF.: This appears to be a larger question than we understood that it was when the discussion began. I happen to be a member of the Private Bills Committee and I attended rather regularly when the Bill was under discussion, and I want to confess that we did not get anything like all the information that was necessary, for I have heard a great deal to-night and have received a great deal of information on this subject, much that we did not get in the Private Bills Committee when the Bill was cut down very materially from the shape in which it was introduced. The only point I want to make is with regard to the statements made by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson). The hon. member himself does not say absolutely that those statements are correct, because he does not know of his own knowledge. But he says that he has what he considers reliable information, and it is to the effect that this original company was started in 1901, was given certain powers in connection with the damming of the St. Lawrence river, powers that might not be given to-day, in the light

what we know now of the value of water-powers and of the facility with which power may be sent for long distances. Though this Bill does not deal with water-powers but simply proposes a transmission line-yet if, by passing this Bill, we enable that company, that big American company, which now owns the charter granted in 1901, to do something we would not grant power to do to-day, and if in the meantime they having carried out the provisions of their charter, then I say the hon. member for Westmorland is -right and that we should hesitate about passing this Bill until we find out exactly the position in which this House stands. Far be it from me to seek to prevent any company or body of men from coming and developing the natural resources of this country. But here is an American concern that has privileges got from this parliament, privileges that, when accorded by the legislature of the State of New York for that side of the river will be upon the condition of the company paying $20,000 or $25,000 a year. If half the power got by damming the St. Lawrence belongs to Canada, I say we should hesitate before giving our half for nothing when the American side is being paid for at the rate of perhaps $25,000 a year. What I suggest is that we do not go on with the Bill at present, but either refer it to a special committee or send it again to the Committee on Private Bills for the purpose of ascertaining exactly the position of the matter and for the purpose of ascertaining whether the statements made by the hon. member for Westmorland are correct or not. I think that the promoter of the Bill will make greater progress if we are given an opportunity to understand exactly the position we are in with relation to this Bill.


Samuel Hughes: I understand that the New York State Legislature has already passed an Act to authorize the construction of that dam, and that there is now a Bill before the United States House of Representatives, Bill (No. 14531) to confirm the Act of the New York State legislature- whether that Bill will pass or not is a matter of concern to many. Under the terms of this Act, how is the St. Lawrence river to be controlled? The great navigable portion of it is controlled by one lock, and the bed of it is to be handed over to the state of New York for ever, so that the growing navigation of the St. Lawrence river is to be practically handed over to the control of a monopolistic company for the generation of electrical power from which the state of New York will get a few thousand dollars a year, the Ontario nothing, and this government, I suppose, nothing but a little rake-off for politics. There is the situation as I am told it is. I would like the hon. member for Westmorland to look at this aspect of the case and tell us whether it is
or is not true that by coupling up this company with the existing company and taking advantage of the New York and Washington legislation they can have the power to dam the St. Lawrence river. These gentlemen are worth watering. There is no great hurry in passing this Bill. It will stand over certainly for another session, and even this session long enough for this matter to be looked into. If this company can, under this Act, take possession by expropriation of the bed of the St. Lawrence river as far as the Ontario government owns it, and if they can control the waterway by expropriation, as they can under this Act, to the centre of that river, then the navigation of that river is closed in perpetuity. Every year that St. Lawrence river is a highway, traffic is increasing in volume, the navigation of these rapids is absolutely safe at the present time. Such a thing as a vessel of any size being wrecked is unheard of. More and more navigation requires that this river should be kept open and free. Now I maintain that in the interest of the province of Ontario, in the interest of the Dominion of Canada, in the interest of the St. Lawrence river, and in the interest of good fellowship with the United States, there should be no legislation passed here that will permit the damming of that river. We want to live in amity with our friends across the river, we want to stand 'shoulder to shoulder with them in promoting the interests of humanity the world over. But if these interests are permitted to get into the hands of private companies, it will bring discord, it will tend to breed dissension. That reason alone should be sufficient to prevent any such measure going through this House. It is a matter well worth looking into. The gentlemen who are behind this scheme have placed $2,000,000 for promotion. Now what promotion means I do not know, perhaps some one can tell us. But I am informed that $2,000,000 in capital has been set aside for promotion, and perhaps that explains the energy with which this Bill is being pushed through. At all events, I want this case to stand, and if it does not stand, then I want the rights of the province of Ontario to be guarded.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know that it adds to the strength of the opposition to this Bill to impute motives to those who are in favour of it. My opposition to this Bill is based entirely upon public grounds. I stated I had been informed that those who were seeking this legislation proposed to exercise the powers which would be granted them, in connection with certain other powers which they have secured, and that if they did so it would be a detriment to this country, and an advantage to the industrial world in the United

States. Now I think every word that has been uttered since I expressed these fears, and every act that has been cited, confirm the views I expressed, and the fears I entertained. Now my memory has been refreshed. I recall that away back in the 90's Mr. M. P. Davis secured a lease from the government of Canada for certain water-powers in connection with the Cornwall canal. Subsequently, after 1896, when the present administration came into power, that lease was renewed and wider powers were given.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And extended from twenty-one years to eighty-tour years.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Renewed and perhaps extended. Subsequently Mr. Davis had a company incorporated, to wit, the St. Lawrence Power Company, and he transferred all his rights and privileges granted to him under the lease which he had frf>m the government of Canada, to the St. Lawrence Power Company. Then he entered into a contract with the government of Canada to sell them certain lighting privileges on the canals of the St. Lawrence. He enjoyed the privilege of that contract for a number of years. Subsequently, if I am correctly informed, the St. Lawrence Power Company assigned to certain other parties their rights, and M. P. Davis and his associates mentioned in this Act of 1901 do not now control the contract, and the lease in connection with the Cornwall canal.


Samuel Hughes: How much did they receive for selling it?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not going to inquire into that, it is not germane to the question. The point is that, all the rights contained in this Bill of 1901 are owned and enjoyed by a company that is associated with some great capitalists in the United States. Now, not only did they have the power under this Act in 1901 to secure, acquire, use, maintain and operate canals, water courses, race ways and water-powers, in or adjacent to the St. Lawrence river, on the north side thereof, but they have also the power to construct dams, wing dams and sluices, and buildings, in connection therewith. They have all the powers they require. 1 am going to read for the benefit of this committee, and in order to put it on ' Hansard ' for the benefit of the people of this country, the powers which this great corporation enjoy on the American side of the line, in conjunction with the powers which they have secured or may secure on this side of the line, and the contrast between the conditions imposed by the American legislation and those which we do not impose, is certainly an appalling one.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is that Bill of 1901 still in force?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, the Act of 1901 is in force. It has been exercised, and the company built the dam, and that is the company that holds the lease. It is called the dam of the St. Lawrence Power Company. Not only that, but they have the lease, which was granted to M. P. Davis. Now who are the incorporators in the Act of 1901? Michael Patrick Davis, Duncan Byron McTavish, D'Arcy Scott, Robert J. Devlin and William Hepburn Kerr, all of the city of Ottawa. These leases are held in the name, of that company to-day, and that company, as I understand it, is owned and controlled not by the individuals whom I have mentioned as being the incorporators, but by gentlemen who live south of the boundary line. This is:
All Act to incorporate the Long Sault Development Company, and to authorize said company to construct and maintain dams, canals, power houses and locks at or near Long Sault Island, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the St. Lawrence river and developing power from the waters thereat, and to construct and maintain a bridge, and carry on the manufacture of commodi-ti es.
The people of the state of New York, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as follows:-
section 1. Michael H. Flaherty, Frank S Smith, Henry H. Warren, Walter F. Willson and John C. Crasper, and all such persons as are or may hereafter be associated with them and their successors, are hereby constituted a body corporate and politic by the name and style of the Long Sault Development Company, for the purpose of erecting, constructing, maintaining, operating and using, m connection with the St. Lawrence liver, a dam or dams, a canal or canals, a reservoir or reservoirs, and a power-house or power-houses and works appurtenant thereto, c n?ar Lon& Sault island, in the county ot bt. Lawrence, and of erecting and constructing a lock or locks, and works appurtenant thereto, at or near the same place, all tor the development of electrical power and energy and the permanent improvement of navigation on the St. Lawrence river at and above and below said place; and also of constructing and maintaining a bridge upon or m connection with said works, and of carrv-mg on the manufacture of commodities with the said power.
2. Said corporation shall have power:
(h)	To have perpetual succession.
(2.) To have a common seal and alter the same at pleasure.
(3.) To acquire, by grant, gift, purchase, devise, bequest or other lawful means, and to hold and dispose of such property as its purpose shall require, subject to such limitations as may be prescribed by law.
(4.) To appoint such officers and agents as its business shall require, and to fix their compensation.
(5.) To make by-laws not inconsistent with any existing law, for the management of its property, the regulation of its affairs, the

transfer of its stock, and the calling of meetings of its members.
(6.) To borrow money and contract debts, when necessary, for the transaction of its business or for the exercise of its corporate rights, privileges or franchises, or for any other lawful purpose of its incorporation; and it may issue and dispose of its obligations for any amount so borrowed, and may mortgage its property and franchises to secure the payment of such obligations or of any debt contracted for said purpose, subject in all respects to the provisions of section two of the stock corporation law.
(7.) Said corporation shall have all the other powers, privileges and franchises now or hereafter conferred by the general stock and business corporation laws of the state of New York.
3. Said corporation shall have the right to erect, construct, maintain, operate and use all such dam or dams, canal or canals, reservoir or reservoirs, gates, sluices, trunks, pipes, bulkheads, piers, flumes, abutments and other works appurtenant thereto, as may be proper or useful for the purpose of the development of water-power, and of electrical power and energy therefrom, at such point or points upon or adjacent to the south shore of the St. Lawrence river, near Long Sault island or Barnhart's island, and upon the said islands, or either of them, and between said islands, and between said islands or either of them and the shores of the said river and Sheik's island (but not across the international boundary line unless consented to by the Dominion of Canada) as may be selected by said corporation, and also in and upon so much of the said river and the bed thereof as lies to the south of the international boundary line, at or near Long Sault island or Barnhart's.island, either independently or in connection with like works now erected, or to be erected, in so much of said river and the bed thereof as lies to the north or Canadian side of said international boundary line, and upon and adjacent to the northerly shore of said river; and to ereet, construct, maintain, operate and use a power-house or power-houses, and conductors, cables, wires, insulators and other appliances in connection with the said works for the development of electrical power and energy; and also to take and use the waters of said rivers at and above the points of location of said wrorks heretofore authorized, and to construct and maintain upon, over and in connection with said dam or dams and other works, a bridge or bridges across or partly across the St. Lawrence river, with the approaches thereto, for the use of foot passengers, animals and vehicles, and to charge reasonable rates of toll for passage thereon; the said rights being granted upon the express condition that said corporation shall make just compensation to all persons injured by the exercise of the rights and privileges heretofore granted, and that said corporation shall also erect and construct a lock or locks as may be required by the United States of America, and shall provide electrical power or energy for the maintenance, operation and use of said lock or locks, free of charge, and shall in all other respects perform, fulfil and abide by all and
singular the conditions and provisions of this Act, and also of an Act of the congress of the United States relating thereto, and also upon condition that the rights hereby granted shall never be so used as to impair or obstruct the navigation of the St. Lawrence river, _but, on the contrary, that such navigation shall be preserved in as good condition as, if not better than, the same is at present, regard being always had to the amount of the natural flow of water in said river as affecting its navigability from time to time.
i. After the congress of the United States shall authorize the construction of dams, locks .and canals hereby authorized and after the payment by said corporation into the treasury of the state of the fixed sum of ten thousand dollars, the commissioners of the land office shall, upon application of said corporation, grant unto it the title and interest of the people of the state in and to lands under the waters of the St. Lawrence river to be covered or occupied by said works and locks and power-houses, provided, however, that any of the lands of the state which may be so conveyed to said corporation shall be forfeited and title thereto shall revert to the state unless the same are actually used by said corporation and covered by its dams, canals, reservoirs, gates, sluices, trunks, ' pipes, bulkheads, piers, flumes, abutments or other works appertaining thereto, or are necessary to the enjoyment for said purposes of any lands so used or covered, within fifte ;n years from the conveyance thereof by the commissioners of the land office to said corporation under authority of this Act, and in consideration of the conveyance so made under the authority of this Act, as well as for the rights and privileges hereby granted, the said corporation in addition to the payment aforesaid shall pay into the treasury nf the state for the .year nineteen hundred and ten, the fixed sum of fifteen thousand dollars, and for the year nineteen hundred and eleven, the fixed sum of twenty thousand dollars, For each year after nineteen hundred and eleven, the said corporation shall pay at the following rates upon the average amount of electrical horse-power generated during such year under the authority of this Act, that is to say:	Upon all amounts up to twenty-five
thousand electrical horse-power, at the rate of seventy-five cents per horse-power.
Upon all amounts in excess of twenty-five thousand electrical horse-power and up to one hundred thousand electrical horse-power, at the rate of fifty cents per horse-power; upon all amounts in excess of one hundred thousand electrical horse-power, at the rate of twenty-five cents per horse-power. In case said corporation shall generate or develop water-power as mechanical power, without transmuting the same into electrical power, then for so much of said water-power as shall be so generated or developed, payment shall be made at the above mentioned rates per mechanical horse-power.
In determining the average amount of electrical liorse-power generated and the average amount of mechanical horse-power generated or developed in any year, for the purpose of determining the amount to be paid to the

Mark this: They contemplate that Canada and Ontario would insist on a payment for the use of that water.
In case any said corporation shall at any time be compelled to make any payment tc Mr. EMMEESON.
the Dominion of Canada or the province of Ontario for the use by said corporation of any portion of said water to generate power as authorized by this Act, said corporation shall be entitled to an equitable readjustment of the rate of compensation to be paid to the state for that portion of the said water for the use of which said corporation shall be compelled to make payment to said dominion or province.
They contemplate that Canada and Ontario would insist on a payment for the use of that water. We are going to give them our water and their own as well and they pay the State of New York. The State of New York is fair enough to say in its enactment that they expect the Dominion of Canada will look after its own interests and that there will be an equitable adjustment.
Such readjustment shall be made by arbitrators, one of whom shall be appointed by the said corporation and one by the governor of the state within thirty days after the receipt by him of written notice of such appointment by said corporation, and in case of their failure to agree the two said arbitrators shall choose an umpire. The decision of the arbitrators, or of the umpire, shall be made in writing, in duplicate, one copy shall be filed with the state treasurer and one delivered to the said corporation; such decision shall be final and binding on both parties, and from and after a date to be fixed therein, payments shall he made in accordance therewith, and pending such decision payments shall be made for each year at the rates aforesaid.
5.	Said corporation may at any time, with the consent of the holders of at least two-thirds in amount of its capital stock at the time outstanding, given in writing or at a meeting of such stockholders duly called for that purpose, sell or convey all or any portion of its property and assets, and the franchises and rights appurtenant thereto, upon such terms as may be consented to as aforesaid, but subject plvvays to all the conditions and provisions of this Act.
6.	The existence of said corporation shall be perpetual.
7.	The capital of said corporation shall be one million dollars, divided into ten thousand shares of the par value of one hundred dollars each; but said corporation shall not begin business until two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, par value, of the capital stock shall have been actually subscribed and paid for in cash, nor until the organization tax provided by the general law;s of the state of New York shall have been paid to the state treaurer; and upon any increase of said capital stock such tax upon such increase shall also be paid.
8.	The number of directors of said corporation shall be five. Said directors shall hold office for the term of one year after their election, and until their successors are elected and qualified. Michael H. Flaherty, Frank S. Smith, Henry H. Warren, Walter F. Wilson and John C. Crapser shall be the directors of said corporation for the first year and until their successors are elected and qualified. The first election shall be held on the first Monday after the third Thursday of February, in the year nineteen hundred and
5.361

eight. Any vacancy in the board of directors occurring before the first election shall be filled by vote of the remaining directors. The number of directors may be increased as provided by law.
9.	The said corporation shall begin the work of constructing its dam pursuant hereto within one year after the congress of United States shall authorize the construction of dams, locks and canals hereby authorized, and in case such construction shall not he so begun the grants, rights and privileges hereby granted may be forfeited.
10.	This Act, and all the terms, conditions and provisions thereof, shall apply to the successors and assigns of the incorporators named in the first section hereof.
11.	This Act shall take effect immediately.
Certain powers are granted the company by the legislature of the State of New York. We have granted certain powers. There can be a holding company that can assemble all these powers, control the whole of the waters there and all the water-powers, and I apprehend that would not be a Canadian holding company but would be a company originating in the United States and composed of gentlemen of great capital in the United States. It is true that under our law there can be no exercise of these powers on the St. Lawrence even by a company incorporated by this parliament unless the plans were filed and met the approval of the Department of Public Works. I apprehend that has been done with respect to the works which that company, that is the St. Lawrence Power Company, have already constructed. I apprehend' that when they come to exercise the powers which they seek and require to exercise they can take this Act and under its authority can prepare additional plans and go to the Department of Public Works, and if their plans are approved of, they can have a complete system controlling the water-powers of the St. Lawrence, with everybody at their mercy m that vicinity and for a long distance removed from there. It seems to me that this legislation is such, taking into consideration all that it involves, all that it seems to involve, all that it may involve of which we do not at this moment know, that it is right and just and proper for this committee to now hesitate, to say we shall require further information, we shall require to know more as to the purposes of the company to see whether it is proposed to have an amalgamation. It is true the legislature of the State of New York did not have the full powers to enable that company to exercise all the rights that they require. They have to go to the Congress of the United States, the federal authority, but they do it there by legislation. We have done it already, we have legislated in this regard. We, in all such cases under the general powers given to the Public Works Department, authorize that 170



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
department to have a control, to give their approval to grant a license practically for the exercise of any powers which we may have enacted in behalf of any company. I say that for these reasons, if there were no others, I would oppose this Bill. I would not wish to have any question arise in a matter of this kind as between the province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada. There is no necessity for anything of that kind. It is something that is beyond even the question of provincial and federal rights, it is something that affects the citizenship of Canadians, that might injure or might protect the business interests, the industrial interests on our side of the line, and if there is a possibility in that regard, if there are any dangers, if there are any hopes, surely we should guard against the dangers and we should preserve the hopes of the people of Canada.
Mr. ROBB.: Has the State of New York power to sell the water-powers along the St. Lawrence river tributary to the State of New York?


Henry Robert Emmerson: The New York legislature exercised rights which under the constitution belongs to them; they have the ownership in the soil under the waters of the St. Lawrence south of the international boundary, and by virtue of that ownership they assumed to exercise legislative authority in connection with the powers granted to this company. The congress of the United States controls the navigation and the international aspects of the river, and congress would not permit the exercise of these powers without granting legislation supplementing the legislation of the state of New York, and approving of it.


Robert Smith: Does the hon. gentleman contend that the authority of the state of New York, plus the authority of the United States government, would enable that company to dam the St. Lawrence south of the international boundary line without the consent of Canada?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That question does not arise in connection with this legislation, but I admit most unquestionably that in the case of navigable waters and international streams the consent of the government of Canada must be first had. But what I say is: these people can do us no injury by reason of the legislation they have already secured from the United States or by legislation which they may secure. That can only become a menace and a peril to our conditions by reason of whatever unwise legislation we may pass here, and by reason of the action of the Dominion government. But we must not place the whole responsibility on the government, we have the responsibility as legislators ourselves. It seems to me that



EDITION.

[Stage Direction]
whereas we in the past may have given powers which we did not contemplate would g,o so far, that now when we are called upon to supplement these powers we should hold the reins in our own hands and say that they cannot have these additional powers unless there is a full and complete understanding with respect to the exercise of them.
Samuel Hughes: Does not the United States federal legislation make the erection of a dam conditional on similar legislation being obtained from Canada?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is to be found in the Bill I have read.


Richard Blain: When this mil was first introduced it was evidently thought to be an innocent measure, but now the hon. member for Assiniboia admits that many new phases of the Bill have presented themselves even to-night and which were not considered by the Private Bills Committee. The Bill we are now considering is a second reprint, which is conclusive proof that the Private Bills Committee tound it necessary to eliminate some of the powers sought by this company in the original Bill, and consequently it demands careful consideration at the hands of the House. Hon. gentlemen opposite would lead us to believe that the Ontario hydro electric commission only proposes to furnish power to western Ontario, but I commend to them the fourth report of the commission, in which they will find that in the St. Lawrence district (eastern Ontario) the commission proposes to supply power to six municipalities, in the central Ottawa valley district to 13 municipalities and in the upper Ottawa valley district to 7 municipalities. While, up to the present time the hydro electric commission and the Ontario government have concentrated on the development of the Niagara power it must be remembered that they intend to extend their operations in the interest of the people to every part of the province. The hon. gentleman from New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) suggested that the hydro electric commission and the Ontario government were making an effort to compel municipalities to come under the commission, but I would mention to my hon. friend that the option has to be submitted to the voters of the municipalities before they can have the right, to receive power from the hydro commission, and, therefore, the whole thing rests with the municipalities themselves. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) spoke about monopolists^ but I would remind my ihon. friend that there are two kinds of monopolists. There are private individuals who are constantly 'coming to this House endeavouring to get control of public utilities in their Mr. EMMERSON.
own interests, and there are the other monopolists like the province of Ontario who seek to develop and utilize our natural water-powers in the interest of the whole people of the province, and without any idea of making gain for themselves. Let me tell hon. gentlemen opposite that this is the foremost plank in the platform of the Ontario government. There are 107 members in the legislature, and although the government have a large majority, there is yet an active and enterprising minority led by an able man, and not one of that minority has ventured to say a word against the continuance of the hydraulic electric power commission and its efforts in the interest of the people of Ontario. There was some little criticism in the legislature as to details, but there was no opposition to the principle. Let me remind these gentlemen opposite also that a general election has taken place in the province since the Ontario government had the courage to adopt that as a plank in their platform, and that the government of the province has been sustained by the people by an overwhelming majority. I, therefore, contend that the provincial government should be consulted in matters of this kind, and that applies not only to the government of Ontario but to the governments of all the provinces who are anxious that the rights of their provinces should be protected. The Liberal party in former days claimed to be the great champions of provincial rights, but we have not heard su much about that claim since they became all powerful at Ottawa.
However I do not wish to introduce that phase of the question for discussion. What I want to point out is that it is high time the Dominion and the various provincial governments should come to some agreement in order that the rights of the people, both provincial and Dominion, should be protected, and protected not in the interests of men who come here from time to time seeking charters in order that they may sell them again. All these matters should be carefully considered, not alone by this government, but by this government in negotiation with the provincial governments, and not have the time of this House and its committees wasted upon these constant discussions regarding federal and provincial rights. This is a matter which should be settled between the provincial and Dominion governments. A clause should be put in all these Bills to provide that no charter granted by this parliament should be sold [DOT]without the sanction of the Governor in Council. That would put a stop to some of the bartering and sale of charters. But if we allow Bills of this kind to pass, we are encouraging this kind of business and it will continue. I want to enter my protest as strong as passible against the granting of these important

'privileges without taking every precaution to protect the public.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think my hon. friend, who is usually very logical in his remarks, intended this evening to draw the discussion away from its legitimate bounds; but evidently the result of his argument has been to waste one and half hour of oui time in discussing the merits of the proposed Long Sault power question now before the Railway Commission. We are not discussing the building of a dam across the St. Lawrence. That is not involved in this Bill. The promoters are simply asking for the right to build a transmission line. They could not say that they are going to get their power from the St. Lawrence Power Company. They may get it from the Beauharnois canal or any where else they can. They simply ask the right to deliver power to the municipalities along the St. Lawrence river.


John Dowsley Reid: They said in the private Bills committee they were going to get their power from the St. Lawrence Power Company.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot help what they said in that committee, but I want to tell the hon. member for Victoria and Halibur-ton (Mr. S. Hughes) that I have not received, and do not expect to receive, any portion of that $2,000,000 we are told was set aside for promotion purposes. I am not a member of the private Bills committee, and I simply take the Bill as it came from that committee and is now before the House. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) did not take the cue which the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Ernmer-son) gave, although the hon. member for Westmorland was doing yeoman serv'ce. He was trying to draw the attention of the committee away from the real point and divert it to the Long Sault question. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) gave his attention to the Hydro-Electric Commission, and that after all is the bogie at the bottom of the whole thing. It is a question whether the people of Ontario are to have any electrical development except what is controlled by that commission. I want to refer for a moment to the Act cited by my hon. friend from Westmorland, the Act of 1901. My hon. friend said that a gentleman of some authority informed him that the intention was to link up the St. Lawrence Company of 1901 with this company. I have read over this Act pretty carefully, and I find that by section 8:
The company may-manufacture, use, supply and dispose of electricity, water and gas, and water, hydraulic or other power by means of wires, cables, pipes, conduits, machinery or other appliances; and construct, maintain, and operate works for the production, sale and distribution thereof, for the purposes aforesaid.	; o | ,J !
170i
And by section 13:
The powers granted by this Act shall cease and be null -and void unless works of the company capable of producing at least 1,000 horse-power are completed within three years from the passing of this Act, and notwithstanding anything contained in any Act of parliament.
My hon. friend from Stormont (Mr. Smith), who ought to know surely what he is talking about because he represents the constituency immediately concerned, says that this company has never spent a dollar and never built a dam and never created a water-power.


Robert Smith: If my hon. friend will allow me-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: True they have built a power-house along the Cornwall canal and they are leasing water from the government, but they have not created one pound of water which would generate electricity. They have done nothing but build a plant with certain wheels and machinery in it and they get their water from the canal.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman say that all the powers given in the Act of 1901 have become absolutely void?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If we are to believe the statement of the hon. member for Stormont, (Mr. Smith) that Act of 1901 is void.


Robert Laird Borden: But I understand that the company is supplying power to the government to-day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But not under the provisions of this Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Under what Act then?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They have not complied with the requirements of section 13.


Robert Laird Borden: The result of that is that all their powers have ceased and are absolutely void. What I desire to draw the attention of my hon. friend to is this, that that does not seem to be consistent with the situation as it exists at present, because that company is actually supplying power to the government, and it has not authority to do so except under the Act of 1901. Therefore I can hardly come to the conclusion that all the powers given it are void, since the government have actually made a Contract with it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I consider this section, they have not complied with it:
The powers granted by. this Act shall cease and be null and void unless works of the company capable of Producing at least 1,000 horsepower are completed within three years from the passing of this Act, and notwithstanding *nything contained in any Act of parliament.

They have not complied with those requirements. However I do not think that makes much difference.


Robert Smith: There is no doubt that the company have complied with the Act. What was contemplated was that this company should construct a power-house which involves also the cutting of the bank so as to lead the water from the canal into the power-house and the constructing of a tail race to let the water into the river after it strikes the water-wheels. Also it was intended to develop what was known as the Hooples creek scheme. That consisted of digging a canal from the power-house some ten miles inland and conducting the water from the Sault rapids into the Hooples canal. That part has not been done.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was just going to say that, as I view this case, it makes no difference whether the rights granted under this Act are null and void or not, because there is not in this Bill any evidence whatever that there is any intention of linking up with this company. I want to come to the argument of the hon. member for Westmorland.
Suppose it were provided in this Bill that the company now seeking incorporation might make .an agreement with the St. Lawrence Power Company, with the right to purchase electricity-go even further than that, and suppose that they get the right to join up with the company organized by the legislature of the state of New York, and, if you will, dam the whole St. Lawrence river-wherein would the people of Ontario be injured by carrying out the scheme proposed by this Bill? Wherein would the people of any part of the Dominion be injured? I do not care if you admit that we are going to bring electricity from the state of New York into Ontario and Quebec .and distribute it in Montreal, Prescott, Brockville, Kingston and other places up and down the St. Lawrence, does that hurt anybody in Ontario? I may not understand what the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) means. Section 12 of the Bill prohibits the exportation of electricity. They are only given the power to buy electricity and distribute it. I do not care whether they buy it from the New York company, from the St. Lawrence Power Company, or whether they have to go down to the Beauharnois canal and get it there. The people along the St. Lawrence want electrical energy, and this company wants the power to transmit it. It is said that if the old company is in existence, under section 8 they can transmit power. I think the statement of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. S. Sharpe) is correct, that they would have to get the authority of the municipalities before they could go through their borders. Under this Bill, we are taking the Mr. CARVELL.
modern method, provided in a good many cases by the Railway Committee, and asking that the operations under this Bill .be governed entirely by the Railway Commission. If they want to go through a municipality, they must go to the municipality and try to make a trade; if they cannot do that, then the Railway Commission is empowered to make the conditions on which they shall go through. Let us get away from this Long Sault proposition that my hon. friend from Westmorland brings up so industriously; let us get away from the idea that we are going to export electricity; let us get away from the idea that under this Bill we are going to produce electricity. These things are not in the Bill. When we come down to the Bill we find that it is for the organization of a company to buy electricity where they can get it, and to distribute it to the people -on the St. Lawrence, who are sorely in need of these facilities. I think hon. members are travelling far afield when they attempt to bring up such propositions as that of my hon. friend from Westmorland, unless they take the ground of my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) who is quite consistent-


Henry Robert Emmerson: I desire to ask a question. Is the hon. member (Mr. Car-vell) not aware that owing to the topography of the country, all the power on the St. Lawrence would be on the American side, .and that that is the reason this transmission company want to import power- that the whole power will be generated on the American .side?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: So much the more reason for having this Bill. If you cannot generate power on the Canadian side, are you going to say that the people on the St. Lawrence shall not have power because it has to be imported?


Samuel Hughes: If the object is to create a dam.


Mr. CARVELL  I .@: say that, if the hon, member for Westmorland is right-I do not believe he is-and we cannot create power on the Canadian side, so much the more need for this Bill.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I did not say that. I say that, by reason of the topography of the country, the effect of the works here proposed would be to throw the generating of the power to the other side. I remember that, a year ago, when I was in Massena, which is right near the Long Sault rapids, it was pointed out to me. that under the legislation the people on that side of the line were going to get, the whole advantage of the proposed dam on the St. Lawrence, and they said that we ought to look out for it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend admits now that there can be some power develop-

ed on the Canadian side. If that be true, why should not the people along the St. Lawrence have the right to use it?


Henry Robert Emmerson: This company does not intend to do it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of course not. This company intends to transmit power. Now, I come to my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). I say he is consistent. He does not try to draw a herring across the trail as does my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson). He comes out like a man, plump ancr plain, and says that the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission intend-sometime within a hundred years, I suppose-to come down and develop water-power, and distribute it, and therefore nobody else should be allowed to get in-let the people get along without these utilities until the Hydro-Electric is ready to serve them.


Richard Blain: The hon. member (Mr. Car-veil) has overlooked the reports of the Hydro-Electric that are in circulation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not the first report sent out in the way of a prospectus that has not fulfilled what is propnesied. Let me tell my hon. friend from East Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) that this talk about hoping to sell power in Galt and Stratford at $20 or $21 means distribution at a central station. Let me give two illustrations. Down home, or rather just across the border, in the state of Maine, in the town of Halton, they are buying electricity at two and a half cents a kilowatt hour, but it costs the people ten cents per kilowatt hour for their electricity. The difference goes in the cost of distribution. In the towns of Perth and Andover, in the constituency of Victoria, N.B., the electricity costs four cents at the station, and costs ten cents when it is distributed. When you talk of the price of delivering at the station, that is not a criterion of what it will cost to distribute it to the people.


Richard Blain: Does not the hon. member know that in the face of such things as he is stating, the people have voted strongly in favour of the Hydro-Electric power?


James Conmee: They were deceived.


Richard Blain: The people of Fort William were not deceived.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am ready to leave these two hon. gentlemen to fight that out, while I get back to the Bill. The object, as I have said, is to distribute electricity, and to give the people the benefit of this utility. I contend that the measure ought not to go back to the committee, and it ought not to be subject to what the province of Ontario might decide. For, as as pointed out by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Robert Smith) the moment
a proposition of that kind is put in the Bill the Ontario government would find means, to destroy the enterprise.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. member think that the state of New York is justified in demanding, and receiving from the Long Sault power the large sums of money they are receiving from year to year, and that the province of Ontario ghould not receive any remuneration?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Under this Bill, the price at which this commodity should be distributed, and sold, is in the hands of the Canadian Railway Commission. If you place a big royalty upon it, the people will have to pay that much more for it; if you do not place that much royalty the people will get it for less.


James Conmee: I would like to call the attention of the committee to the statements made by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). With regard to the Bill of the state of New York, to which he has referred, I understood him to approve of that Bill. I would like to know whether that is the case-is it a Bill that he would approve of it either in Ontario, or the Dominion parliament passed it? Would the hon. member oblige me with an answer?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I do not know that it is involved at all in my argument, a3 to whether I do approve, or do not approve. One thing I do approve of, and that is, if we grant these powers to a private company, I approve of the action of the state of New York in imposing obligations upon them. They are not doins? it for their health, they are not going to the legislatures for these powers for any other interest except their own. They propose to make money out of it, and I think it is right that the province, and the Dominion, in granting these franchises should impose obligations.


James Conmee: My hon. friend has brought in a Bill, and has placed it on ' Hansard,' and has given it a certain amount of approval. Now I do not think that my hon. friend nor any other member can approve of that Bill. I say that between that Bill and the legislation which we are passing from day to day, and the legislation in the very Bill under consideration, there is no comparison in the public interest. Under that Bill the state of New York gets about $30,000, and then they get a small percentage per horse power per annum. There is not a word in the Bill that protects the people of the state of New York either as to prices, or hours of service, or conditions of service. There the water-power is alienated from the people of the state for a paltry sum, and put into the hands of a private company. When you put in the

Bill before us a condition that the Board of Railway Commissioners, the high court which the government has established for the protection of private interests as against railway or other companies, shall control the rates to be charged, then you put in conditions that conserve to the people the benefit of these great facilities. Thera is no comparison as regards the public interest between the legislation in the state of New York and the legislation which we are considering here.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend say that the company has the right to fix their own charges in the general Bill of the state of New York? The private company to which my hon. friend refers has no right to fix the charges, they are fixed under a general law of the state of New York. My hon. friend understands that very well.


James Conmee: No, I do not understand it that way, if that is the case it is of recent date, but the reverse. I know that by a report made a couple of years ago by the president of the United States, wherein he pointed out that that was the weak point in the legislation of the various states of the union, that it should be guarded by the federal power, and upon that very ground he vetoed the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company's Bill, which was a federal Bill. Let me point out to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) wherein I think he and other hon. gentlemen are not consistent. We had a Bill to-dav that was severely criticised because it had a provision to allow the sale of a surplus of electricity in the case of a railway. Tha*t was criticised for several hours, and no sooner had it passed than the hon. gentleman passed another Bill which had on it the name of a prominent gentleman who is leader of the opposition in the Senate (Mr. Lougheed) a canal Bill, in which were all the powers my hon. friends are objecting to in this Bill. I have in my hand an Act, chap. 128, to incorporate the St. Clair and Erie Ship canal. Hon. gentlemen spent the whole afternoon criticising a Bill having 'the same powers, they voted for in that Bill, which gives power 'to sell in the province of Ontario power generated from the St. Clair river and the St. Clair lake, and to exercise all the powers to which they are objecting now.


Samuel Hughes: Does it give them all the rapids on the St. Clair river?


James Conmee: I cannot answer that question. It gives them power to generate electricity front the St. Clair river and lake, to sell it and to distribute it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How could they get power in a canal where there are only two locks, one at the commencement and one at the other end, where there is no fall at all?


James Conmee: 


James Conmee: My hon. friend knows very little about power, or he would not ask that question. Where you have a lake such as Lake St. Clair to supply the power, [DOT]and where you have the privilege of making a conduit, there is no limit to the power you can generate except the capacity of the lake to supply it. Now if it is the policy of the hon. gentleman opposite that when one of their friends has a Bill it goes through, no matter what powers it carries, but when some one else has a Bill it must wait for the Hydro-Electric Commission, I do not think that is a sound policy, either in the interest of the Dominion or of the province of Ontario.


Mr. STEWART.: The hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) said that members on this side of the House who are opposing this Bill are guilty of some crime, because they say that it is in the interest of this country that the line should' be built by private companies. I want to tell him that if he goes into a municipality and submits that question, and endeavours to satisfy the ratepayers that they are better off in the hands of a private company than in the hands of the HydroElectric Commission, he will find himself badly left. I know that in the city of Hamilton, where we have the largest power producers in the province, the question has been submitted three or four times to the "ratepayers, and has been carried in favour of the Hydro Commission nearly three to one every time. The hon. gentleman also said that the horse-power was going to cost $75 per horse-power from the Hydro Commission. He has not proof for that statement, it is mere imagination on his 'own part; his figures is about three times as high as they ought to be. In the city of Hamilton our contract provides for $17.92 per horse-power. Power is $9.42 at the Falls, and $8.52 goes to make up the cost of the trunk line, the loss in transmission, building the plant in the city, and in other ways bringing the power right to the motor ready for use.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What do the people of Hamilton pay for electric light, and until what hour?


Thomas Joseph Stewart: They pay many different prices.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the average price?


Thomas Joseph Stewart: There are as many as three dozen different prices charged in the city of Hamilton.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I ask the hon. gentleman a fair question. What do the people pay?


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I cannot tell you how they make their charges but I paid somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30 per

year for light for my house, which I consider very high. I pay $35 per horsepower in Hamilton to-day and I only use the power for eight hours. If I were getting my power from the Hydro-Electric Commission I would be paying $17.92 and 'only paying for the power for eight hours while under the present arrangement I pay $35 for eight hours. We were paying $85 per lamp for our street lighting for ten years in the city of Hamilton which claims to be the electrical city of the Dominion. Since the Hydro-Electric Commission has been inaugurated we are getting it for $47.50 per lamp.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can tell the hon. gentleman that in my town, which is a company town, we are only paying $35 per year per lamp.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I do not know anything about your service, but I know that the Hydro-Electric Commission is entitled to the credit for the cost of lights being reduced from $85 to $47.50. We have been paying anywhere from $35 to $40 per horsepower. The Cataract Power Company offered to give us power for $16 per horsepower and ten per cent less than the commission's price, no matter what it may be. Still, in the face of that the rate-payers' would not take their offer but turned it down three to one. Surely, you do not mean to tell me that you would advise the people of this country to place themselves in the hands of a private company and pay their price for power when they could get their power from the Ontario government at cost price. Not only that but the Ontario government can borrow money at a less rate than any company can get it for, and surely the Ontario government is in a position to furnish power cheaper than any private company could furnish it for. I will venture to say that if you put a clause in to provide that this company should furnish power at cost price to the consumers you would not get anybody to home and ask us for a Bill of this kind. I said that we paid $17.92 per horse-power. Toronto pays $18.10 and Toronto gets 10,000 horse-power while we only take 1,000. If we were to take 10,000 horse-power the same as they do in Toronto our power price would be cut down about $4. Neither you nor anybody else can tell us what Stratford's power price would be unless you know how many horse-power they will take. If they took 500 horse-power the price would be in the neighbourhood of $30 perhaps $29, but it would not exceed $30 or $31. You cannot say that it would be possible to get any better prices than those which I have stated here because the Ontario government has employed the best engineers that could be got in this country to make these assessments and valuations, and the cost of trunk line, copper wire and all those things has only been a trfle over half what the estimate was. As it is we are getting power at $17.92.


James Conmee: Do I understand that the prices that the hon. gentleman is quoting are prices that the consumer has to pay for power in these different cities?


Thomas Joseph Stewart: The price I am quoting is the price that we pav for power. If the municipality sees fit to charge its customers a profit it can do so.


James Conmee: My question was if that was the price after they nave distributed it or is that the price in bulk?


Thomas Joseph Stewart: It will cost $17.92 delivered from the motor to any customer in the city of Hamilton.


James Conmee: That is at the power station?


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Yes.


James Conmee: Does my hon. ...friend know what it will cost to distribute fhat to the consumer?


Thomas Joseph Stewart: Along the trunk line through the heart of the city it will not cost any more than that, but where there are lines at a distance leading to factories it will cost more. Will it not cost more by your company too? You cannot carry it along fences and sidewalks; no matter what power it is, you require a line to carry it.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the question is put I would like to say that if this Bill involves the damming of the St. Lawrence, interference with navigation or a possible alteration in that great inland waterway, it is a very large proposition. I believe that the question is at the present moment before \the Waterwavs Commission. It appears, however, according to the argument of the hon. member for Westmorland, that it is involved in the very Bill that we have before the House. The hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick (Mr. Carvell) referred to section 8 of the Act of 1901. The hon.< member for Westmorland and other hon. members have asserted that that charter is now controlled by the gentlemen who are promoting this Bill. The hon. member for Carleton referred to section 8 but he did not refer to the important part of section 8. The important part of section 8 is .this-I will eliminate the immaterial words.
The company may construct canals and water-powers in or adjacent to the St. Lawrence river, on the north side thereof, at any point eastward from Hoople's creek, in the county of Stormont, to the eastern end of the Soulanges canal, and may construct dams,

wing-dams, sluices, conduits and buildings in connection therewith.
There is power to construct a canal and water-power and to construct and maintain dams in connection with them.


Mr. McCOLL.: Dams upon the St. Lawrence?


Robert Laird Borden: I will read it again:
The company may construct canals in or adjacent to the St. Lawrence river, on the north side thereof, at any point eastward from Hoople's creek, in the county of Stormont in the province of Ontario, to the easi-ern end of the Soulanges canal, and may construct dams, wing-dams, sluices, conduits and buildings in connection therewith.
I understand that legal opinions have been given by gentlemen of very high rank in the profession to the effect that under that power, coupled with the power contained in the Bill which has been passed by the legislature of New York, a dam may be constructed and maintained across the St. Lawrence from the Canadian side to the United States side. I do not know whether these powers are sufficient for that purpose. It would require one to investigate the locality and to apply the words of the statute to the physical conditions before he could come to a very definite or sure conclusion as to that. But, at all events the argument is a plausible one, the argument has been made, and legal opinions have been cited in support of it. Well then, if that be the case, the proposal before the House at the present time, embodied in this Bill, is to confer certain powers on the company now proposed to be incorporated which already controls these powers contained in the Act of 1901, and which, therefore, upon the passage of this Bill, would be in a position to control all necessary legislation on the Canadian side, the legislation on the other side having been secured or the company having made application therefor. It would seem to me that these considerations might very well give the government some concern, and I would not think it advisable that the committee should pass this Bill until the government are in a position to announce their policy in regard to it, and say whether or not, particularly in view of the applications before the Waterways Commission, they should give their sanction to legislation which would have that result.
Something has been said as to the rights of the province of Ontario, and hon. gentlemen have been inclined to make rather light of the position of Ontario. The people of Ontario, through their government, have decided that they will embark upon the project of Mr R. L. BORDEN.
undertaking the development of water-powers in that province and supplying power to the people of that province at cost. By what warrant should the parliament of Canada undertake to give any corporation power to interfere with that project? Is there any good reason in the public interest which can be adduced in favour of such a proposal? The people of Ontario having decided through their legislators, and government that it is in the public interest of that province that water-powers in the province of Ontario should be developed not by private corporations for gain, but by the people of the province in order that every person requiring power in that province should receive it at cost, is it within the fair purview of the parliament of Canada to pass any legislation which will interfere with that project? If any other province in Canada should enter upon and establish the same policy is there any good reason why the parliament of Canada should empower a corporation created for gain to interfere with a public utility of that kind proposed to be carried on by the province itself in the interest of the people of the province? And not only does this Bill propose to do that, but according to hon. gentlemen who have viewed this proposal with favour, the province of Ontario is to have its own lands expropriated, lands which it may require for the purposes of this project, and is to have its own scheme of development interfered with in order that a private corporation may be enabled to make money out of the expropriation of those lands, and out of the scheme carried on by that expropriation. Assuming that the parliament of Canada possesses such a power, it should not be exercised. The people of any province in Canada having determined to enter upon a project of this kind, a project of development of their own natural resources in the interests of the people of the province, should hot have that project interfered with in any way by legislation passed by the parliament of Canada in favour of those who seek to develop the same water-powers for the purpose of gain. Such legislation would seem to me to be most undesirable for this parliament to embark upon, and yet if the argument of hon. gentlemen is correct as to the powers of this parliament, that certain result would follow.
The hon. member for Carleton, New Brunswick, (Mr. Carvell) referred to the desirability of granting these powers, because ho said it might result in the creation of power on the United States side which would thus be imported into Canada, so giving to the people of this country greater opportunities of obtaining power than would otherwise be the case. So far as the development of power on the Canadian side or the United States side of the

St. Lawrence river is concerned, it seems to me that would depend a great deal on where the dam is constructed. You. might construct a dam on the St. Lawrence at one place and find the power nearly altogether on the American side; you might construct it at another place some distance away, and find that the power would be developed on the Canadian side. So I would not agree in the view that it is eminently desirable to pass this legislation, because under it the power to be created will be created on the United States side, and not on the Canadian.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend misunderstood my statement. I made no such statement. The hon. member foT Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) stated that from his knowledge of the location the power would be developed on the American side. I said: So much the more necessity for this, if you cannot get the power on the Canadian side.


Robert Laird Borden: I apologize if I misunderstood my hon. friend; that is the way I understood his reference to the statement of the hon. member for Westmorland. It seems to me this consideration is another reason why we should not be too hasty about this legislation. If the St. Lawrence is to be dammed to create power -and as to the expediency of that, as at present advised, I would have a great deal of doubt,-I think it might be important to come to a conclusion as to the best place in the interests of the country for building such a dam and creatig power, for the very reason to which I have just alluded.


William Pugsley: If I understand my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) aright, his principal objection to this Bill is that in some way it would be interfering with the project of the Hydro-Electric Commission of the province of Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say that was the principal one.


William Pugsley: If that were so quite a strong argument could be presented, but has any one suggested that the Ontario government or the Hydro-Electric Commission propose to develop this water-power?


George Taylor: Certainly.


William Pugsley: No one has suggested that; it does not appear in the report that they propose to develop this power and the complete answer to the suggestion is that the Ontario government has no power on earth to develop this water-power. It is a power contained in a navigable river which, under the British North America Act, is obsolutely under the control of this parliament. Another insuperable objection is that it is an international river, and no
power can be created there by the building of a dam unless that dam extends all the way across the river into American territory and I do not think any province has power to engage in the construction of a work which of necessity extends outside of the limits of the province. Therefore, for two reasons, neither the Ontario government nor the Hydro-Electric Commission created by it would have power to engage in this work, first because it is a navigable water, jurisdiction over which rests absolutely with this parliament, and secondly, because it is an international river, and for that reason the legislature of the province of Ontario would have no authority over it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then how did they get it at Niagara?


William Pugsley: They do not, they rent from a company incorporated entirely outside the Hydro-Electric Commission.


Samuel Hughes: A provincial charter?


William Pugsley: They got a provincial charter, but if I mistake not they came to this parliament and also got it confirmed. But the reason, and the only reason, why they were enabled to go ahead there, was that they leased the ground from the Park Commission. Then there is no dam at Niagara Falls.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It being an international stream the minister would say that power could not be developed by the province and I ask how it was done there?


William Pugsley: Because the works there are wholly on the Ontario side. Here it is proposed to erect a dam and the same must extend across the river in order to develop power. The Ontario legislature could not, in my judgment, authorize the construction of a dam to connect with a dam on the American side, because it would be all one work and beyond the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. Neither could it authorize an obstruction in a navigable river. I do not deny that the Ontario government has constructed works for the development of water-powers in navigable waters. In that respect, I think-and it is worth the attention of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) who dwells so strongly on provincial rights-in that respect, I think they have encroached upon the jurisdiction of this parliament and have sought to do what this parliament and this parliament alone can do. It does seem to me that I ought to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Bill does not profess to give any authority to develop water-power upon the St. Lawrence or anywhere else. It merely incorporates a company for the purpose of distributing electrical energy.


Andrew Broder: Don't you think the Bill should say where they intend to get tho electric current from?
5.379


William Pugsley: I do not think so. Before they commence operations the plans must be approved by the Governor General in Council, and the Bill will only come into operation by proclamation.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister state there is no proposition here to develop power along the St. Lawrence?


William Pugsley: Not in this Bill.


Samuel Hughes: Read subsection 5 of section 11.


William Pugsley: These expropriation powers would be the power to string wires and place poles, but not the right to develop water-powers.


Samuel Hughes: Has not the power to be obtained from the St. Lawrence river?


William Pugsley: There is not a word in this Bill which gives authority to develop water-power along the St. Lawrence.


Richard Blain: Does not the minister think they will develop their power on the St. Lawrence?


William Pugsley: This Bill simply enables them to rent from another company which may develop power.


Richard Blain: Where does the minister think they will get their power?


William Pugsley: My own idea is that they will get their power from a company which may develop it along the St. Lawrence. I do not know that to be the case but I suspect it. This Bill simply incorporates a transmission company which would have to make an arrangement with another company for its power. The development of power upon the St. Lawrence must be provided for by another statute, but this Bill does not give the slightest authority to dam the St.Lawrence or construct any works in the St. Lawrence or anywhere else except such works as are essential for a transmission line. As head of the department which has been investigating this subject, the matter has come before me and lion, gentlemen are doubtless aware that the plans of the company were submitted to the government for the development of water-powers on the St. Lawrence. It was directed that these plans should be referred to the chief engineer of the Department of Railways, the chief engineer of Public Works, and the chief engineer of Marine and Fisheries.


Robert Laird Borden: Under what statute did the company profess to be acting when it submitted these plans?


William Pugsley: They did not state, but I understood it to be under the St. Lawrence Power Company charter granted by this parliament some years ago. I also


Andrew Broder: understood from them that they expected to have to come back to parliament to get authority to dam the St. Lawrence.


George Taylor: They have it under the other statute.


William Pugsley: So my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) thinks, but they did not lead us to understand that they had. The three engineers to whom the plans were referred reported adversely to the plans as originally proposed, and they suggested certain modifications which were accepted. The engineers reported that the project was feasible, that the dam could be erected without interference with navigation, and the matter is now before the International Waterways Commission. I can assure the committee-


Samuel Hughes: I understand that the Waterways Commission have stated that while they are ready to hear any one, they are not ready to deal with the question.


William Pugsley: The International Waterways Commissioners are hearing parties, pro and con, in order to get all the information possible, as the government desire they should do. They heard the statement of the transportation interest and representatives from the city of Montreal and others.


Samuel Hughes: That is some time ago.


William Pugsley: Some few weeks ago.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What power has the International Waterways Commission to deal with this matter?


William Pugsley: They simply advise. It must be borne in mind that there is no doubt that the American section of the International Waterways Commission seems to be very strongly of the opinion that it is to the public advantage to develop the water-powers in the St. Lawrence at the Long Sault, and that not only will navigation not be interfered with, but that it will be improved. It is, of course, desirable that the Canadian section should examine into the subject from every possible standpoint and be quite sure that the decision will be in accordance with the public interest.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister was about to give some assurance to the committee when he was interrupted.


William Pugsley: I was going to assure the committee that no plans would be approved of, no arrangement would be approved of, no agreement would be ratified by the government which does not amply protect Canadian interests.* So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, I can assure the committee that the plans will not be approved of unless upon the express stipulation, which will be thorough-

ly safeguarded, that one-half of the waterpower which will be developed will be reserved absolutely for the use of the people on the Canadian side of the line.


Samuel Hughes: Are these the dam plans?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: The thing is under consideration then?


William Pugsley: That is the view my department has arrived at, and that will be made a sina qua non of any action the department will take.


John Dowsley 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 ago, 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 be in the interest of Canada.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Were these plans which were submitted by the St. Lawrence Power Company to your department for approval, plans for the construction of a work to connect with another work that would come out from the American shore?


William Pugsley: Yes, the plans were for damming the river across from the Canadian side to the American side, and also for the building of a lock for the purpose of improving navigation, the idea being to give an additional lock to the one that is already there, and which was constructed, and- is owned by the Canadian government.


George Taylor: Does the plan provide for a lock on the American side?


William Pugsley: Yes, and that is strongly objected to by the engineers of the department. They urge that the lock should be built on the Canadian side.


Andrew Broder: Were those plans not submitted to the Waterways Commission?


William Pugsley: I understand they were.


Andrew Broder: But the people who appeared before that commission had not access to them.


William Pugsley: When these gentlemen came before the government they were told to go before the commission, and submit their plans with the view of all parties being notified so that they should have an opportunity of seeing the plans. Then, after the commission had decided the matter, it would be further taken up, and considered by the government.


Andrew Broder: Is the hon. minister' aware that the Waterways Commission absolutely refused to consider the details of the matter at all?


William Pugsley: 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 Works, have been called on to consider the matter with the view of determining what would be fair to Canada in case 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 good deal to do with the fixing of rates-it will recommend to council that no agreement be 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. I shall insist that Canada shall be treated on an equal footing with the United States; and although our information is that at the point where it is proposed to build this dam, about ninety per cent of the water is on the American side, yet I shall insist, if we take any action in the matter at all-and 1 do not say that we shall-that at least one-half of the power shall be absolutely reserved for use on the Canadian side, and the revenue we shall receive shall be reasonable, and not be less than that received by the state of New York under the Bill to which my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) has referred.


Samuel Hughes: Are the works under the Act of 1901?


William Pugsley: I do not think so. The plans are submitted for approval by the company which was incorporated under the statute of 1901. But I understand that before the company will be allowed to proceed any further, it will require to have the consent of this House, and must come to parliament for further legislation. That was the assurance which the right hon. the Prime Minister gave the House in answer to my hon. friend from Victoria and Hafiburton (Mr. Hughes).


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Why should the hon. minister expect that the money derived from this source should go to the Dominion treasury, and not to the local government? In New York it goes to the state government.


William Pugsley: There is a great difference between the jurisdiction of the state of New York over rivers, and that of a Dominion province. The state of New York has jurisdiction over, not only the soil, but the waters, and rivers within its territory, whereas a province of Canada has no jurisdiction over navigable waters.


Robert Laird Borden: What jurisdiction has New York over its waters?


William Pugsley: Congress has no jurisdiction.


Robert Laird Borden: But I understand that application was made to Congress by the state of New York for legislation in that connection.


William Pugsley: I believe there has been legislation by Congress to remove any doubts, but at all events the state of New York has power to grant a charter while, in my judgment, a provincial legislature has not. For that reason I would say that the treasury of Canada is entitled to receive the revenue from this water-power, the sole jurisdiction to deal with which is vested in the Dominion parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: Will my hon. friend say that the soil of a river is vested in the Crown in the right of Canada.


William Pugsley: That is a point on which I do not care to express an opinion, nor [DOT] do I think would my hon. friend. I do not think the question is settled as to where the ownership of the soil in navigable water rests. It may belong to the riparian owner, and in this case the riparian owners, I understand, are the St. Lawrence Power Company, for that company has acquired the land where these works are to be situated. That would be the law in my province. There the property in the soil, above the ebb and flow of the tide rests in the riparian owners.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not examined the question at all, and would not care to pronounce an opinion, but I understood the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Robert Smith) to say it had been settled by a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.


Robert Smith: Mr. Stanton on behalf of the Ontario government so argued.


William Pugsley: I am not aware of any such decision. If the land had not been granted, undoubtedly it would rest in the provincial government. That was the case at Niagara Falls.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend mean the land bordering the river or covered with water?


William Pugsley: The land covered with water. In the case of the company which developed the power at Niagara Falls, my hon. friend will remember that the Niagara Park Commission are the riparian owners, and as such they gave a lease to a company which developed the water-power. That company leased the power to the HydroElectric Commission. But that is not the case at Long Sault. The land there has Mr. PUGSLEY.
all been granted by the Ontario government, and I understand that a large portion, if not the whole of it, has been acquired by the St. Lawrence Power Company.


Robert Laird Borden: A great deal would depend on the terms of the grant. It might be made so as to convey the land as far as the middle line of the stream, or it might be made otherwise.


William Pugsley: I am speaking of a grant in the ordinary terms.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister considered what would be the effect which a dam across the St. Lawrence would have on the Ashburton treaty, or whether the two governments combined have authority to close the navigation of that river?


William Pugsley: The contention is that the navigation is not to be closed, but improved.


Samuel Hughes: There can be no question that Great Britain would have to be a consenting party to any legislation providing for the building of a dam.


William Pugsley: It might be that Great Britain should be a consenting party. At nil events, there is no question that it could be done; it is a matter of detail. So far as the project itself is concerned, apart from the Bill before the House, I do not hesitate to say, speaking my own individual opinion, that, in view of the fact that an enormous water-pawer is there undeveloped, which, with development, could produce some 600,000 horse-power, the question is not one to be turned lightly aside. If that water-power can be developed at reasonable cost so that the people of Ontario can be furnished with cheap power for industrial and lighting purposes, and if navigation will not be injuriously affected, I think that the question is one that is well worthy the consideration of every one who has to do with legislation. Therefore, I am disposed to give the matter my most earnest consideration. I am disposed to look into the plans with great care. And, at the same time, as I have said, so far as I am concerned, I shall consent to no approval of the plans, to no agreement being made, to no development going on, unless there is absolutely and irrevocably secured to Canada half the developed water-power and also equal remuneration, so far as the rates are concerned, for the treasury of Canada as for the treasury of New York.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley). Why the necessity of this legislation until these questions are determined? This company have come before this-government already, as I understand it, and have been referred to the Waterways Commission for suggestions. It is quite apparent that the

only way that they hope to acquire power to be distributed is by means of the proposed damming of the St. Lawrence and the carrying out of this scheme. Until this is determined by both governments, why the haste to grant this legislation? Why this leap in the dark?


William Pugsley: I will answer as best I can. I do not know what is in the minds of the promoters of the Bill, but it does not occur to me that the Bill provides for great haste, because it is only to come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation of the Governor in Council, and the Governor in Council will not issue that proclamation until the agreements are entered into, plans are fully considered, and it is understood that the works can be constructed in the public interest and without injury to navigation,-and, I would assume,-they would not issue the proclamation until these agreements were submitted and ratified by parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: The minister has frankly admitted that this Bill is really part of a larger scheme. There cannot be any doubt of that after the frank statement of the minister. It seems to me it might have been fairer to parliament and to the people, if some of these details could have been set before us


William Pugsley: If the hon. member will pardon me: I saw it stated somewhere, that the chairman of the Conservation Commission had written a letter to the committee m which he pointed out this very fact, that they were undoubtedly connected together, referring to the fact of the incorporators being the same,-and at his suggestion all the objectionable features were struck out.


Richard Blain: Not all.


William Pugsley: I think so. I think the Bill is as harmless as any legislation you can have. And, in any case, it is not to become law until it is approved by the Governor in Council.
Mr.^ R. L. BORDEN. The Bill is harmless if the larger project of which it is part is harmless. I would ask the minister, if he has any objection to bringing down the plans which are under consideration. As the minister has referred to them in debate, we have the right to ask for them. But I do not put it so much on that ground as on the ground of public interest, that these plans, which have evidently been under consideration for a long time, should be disclosed to parliament in order that we may know exactly what the promoters of this scheme have in contemplation, and what the government is now considering Would there be any objection?


William Pugsley: I think not. Of course, they are not completed. They are not in
the possession of the government at present, because they were referred to the Waterways Commission. I see no objection to producing them; I think it quite reasonable and fair and would be glad they should be produced. At the same time, I do not withdraw the statement I made, that they are not essential to the consideration of this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: That depends on whether this Bill is really a part of a larger scheme. The minister stated his opinion-and he knows more about the matter than any other hon. member-that the promoters of this Bill expect, under the provisions of this measure, to get their power from a certain source. The Bill will be useless until the larger project is carried out. So there cannot be any great haste about this Bill, as my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) has observed. Speaking of the necessity of providing power for eastern Ontario, I have not heard of any great outcry from the people of that section for a further supply of power. I have been informed by hon. members from the very locality in question that there is a considerable amount of power that cannot find a market.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. member (Mr. R. L. Borden) permit me to interrupt. I have been told by an authority which I cannot ignore and which I fully believe, that more than one important industry has moved from eastern Ontario to western Ontario just in order to get close to electrical power. The people in the vicinity of Brockville are very much in earnest over this. They feel that that section of the country is suffering by reason of the western development from the benefits of which they are excluded.


Andrew Broder: There is a power developed at Iroquois, on which 500 horse-power is already available, with 2,000 more to be developed. The representative of that concern has been running around Prescott and Brockville for three months and offering them power at very reasonable rates


William Pugsley: What is 500 horse-power?


Andrew Broder: He is able to offer 2,500.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: How are they going to get it to Brockville?


Andrew Broder: How is this company
going to get from Cornwall to Brockville?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Over the transmission line.


Andrew Broder: They can do it in the same way. It is 35 miles nearer. And, when we come down to that, the power right here in the vicinity of Ottawa is as near Brockville as the Cornwall power. There is no such terrible sweat over this matter. The Minister of Public Works

(Mr. Pugsley) saw fit to make the question of power paramount in this matter. I have always thought that the great navigation system of the St. Lawrence was paramount to the water-power. There is another fact that ought to stare every Canadian in the face: not a solitary American interest will suffer; every interest that runs the risk of injury is a Canadian interest, they have everything- to gain and we have everything to lose. Nobody knows what effect a dam at the Long Sault- will have upon the river above that point. The outlet of Lake Superior, for instance, is 600 feet higher than the level, say, at Quebec, and you are proposing to dam that river about half way down. The people living along the vicinity of that river have a right to be apprehensive as to the effect of that dam. Engineers have been known to make great mistakes before, in the Quebec bridge for instance, and the mistake they made even at Massena in putting in that enormous power. We are supposed to he governed by these scientific engineers, while the man of common sense is left out of the question altogether. These are questions that should not be dealt with in this flippant way by hon. gentlemen from New Brunswick and other places, who do not care a straw whether we are drowned out in Ontario or not. So far as I am concerned, local interests demand my attention, and as a representative of that section of that country 1 shall not neglect my duty.


Mr. WEIGHT.: Has the Minister of Public Works submitted to the Justice Department the question as to whether this government has any control over navigable waters except for purposes of-navigation?


William Pugsley: I do not think it needs one lawyer to submit to another lawyer the question whether this government has not sole jurisdiction to prevent any obstruction in a navigable river, whether by a dam or any other method. That rests entirely with this parliament, under the British North America Act.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the hon. gentleman considered the effect of the treaty governing the navigation on this river?


William Pugsley: Yes, I have considered that. We recognize that this parliament could not pass any legislation which would authorize a dam to be constructed in a river without putting in a condition that it shall be subject to the approval of the executive government of the United States.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I want to emphasize the position taken by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), and to show the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) that he is mistaken in what he says with regard to the law of the state of New York.


Andrew Broder: There is in the state of New York a commission which governs the rates and all charters on transmission lines. _Let him look at the Consolidated Laws of New York for 1909, volume 4, and he will find on page 3395 these words:
Public Service Commissions Law. ' An Act to establish the Public Service Commissions and prescribing their powers and duties, and to provide for the regulation and control of certain public service corporations and making an appropriation therefor/ (Became a law June 6, 1907.)
In clause 4 we read:
Commissions established ; appointments ; removals; terms of office.
Then on page 3430 he will find article 4 reading as follows:
Provisions relating to gas and electrical corporations; regulation of price of gas and electricity. Sections regarding application of article; general powers of corporations in respect of gas and electricity; inspection of gas and electric meters; approval of incorporation and franchises ; certificates ; approval of issue of stock, bonds and other forms of indebtedness, approval of transfer of franchise; complaints as to quality and price of gas and electricity; investigation by commission; forms of complaints. Notice and hearing; order fixing price of gas or electricity, or requiring improvements; forfeiture for non-compliance with order; defence in case of excessive charge for gas or electricity; jurisdiction; powers of local officers.
65.	Application of article. This article shall apply to the manufacture and furnishing of gas for light, heat or power, and the furnishing of natural gas for light, heat ox-power, and the generation, furnishing and transmission of electricity for light heat or power.
66.	General powers of commissioners in respect to gas and electricity. Each commission shall, within its jurisdiction:
1. Have the general supervision of all persons and corporations having authority under any general or special law, or under any eharter of franchise, to lay down, erect or maintain wires, pipes, conduits, ducts ox-other fixtures in, over or under the streets, highways and public places of any municipality, for the purpose of furnishing or distributing gas, or of furnishing or transmitting electricity for light, heat or power, ox-maintaining underground conduits or ducts for electrical conductors.	,
So this commission has charge in the most complete manner of the transmission of -electricity and the regulation of rates.


James Conmee: That law was only passed last year. It does not affect this Bill.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Chairman


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question, question.


Samuel Hughes: Now that promotion stuff had not better show7 itself too soon tonight. The Minister of Public Works has

stated that there are 500,000 or 600,000 horse-power to be developed at the Sault dam. He has given the whole case away. It seems this matter has been under the consideration of the department for a long time, the scheme has been held up his coat sleeve, it has been engineered by gentlemen interested in it, and these little acces-t series to the St. Lawrence dam are going to be slipped through, and later on we will be asked to confirm the construction of the dam on the pretense of this 600,000 horsepower that are going to be developed. Why, Sir, within 30 miles of the city of Ottawa there is not 600,000 horse-power lying undeveloped, but 3,000,000 horse-power available and undeveloped, and this is accessible to all those towns like Brockville and Prescott, over which the Minister of Public Works has been moaning, just as accessible to them as is the water-power from the town of Cornwall. Moreover, in the construction of the Georgian Bay canal there will be another 3,000,000 horse-power developed within short range of these very places on the St. Lawrence river. The minister, being so well informed, is possibly aware of the fact that gentlemen connected with this water-power have already been canvassing cities and towns in the state of New York and disposing of hundreds of thousands of horse-power to be derived from the construction of the dam which they have assured the people in the United States is already arranged for with the government of Canada. Might I ask the minister if he has given any guarantee to these people that the Bill will be passed?


William Pugsley: There has been no guarantee of any kind given, the matter is simply under consideration. No decision has been arrived at, and no assurance of any kind has been given.


Samuel Hughes: They have had the minister's word at one time, for he has assured them that they must give at least one-half the power to Canada.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. If anything is done.


Samuel Hughes: There is another important point. The shore on the north side of the St. Lawrence river is low ; the shore on the south side is comparatively high. Under past conditions spring freshets have again and again done a great deal of damage to the immediate shores on the north side of the St. Lawrence river. If this enormous dam is constructed, raising the water to a very great height, when the spring freshets and the ice jam come along, still further damming the waters up, they may possibly overflow the whole shore of the St. Lawrence. The height of land between the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa is just a few miles from the St. Lawrence. Therefore, it is easily within the bounds of possibility that if this dam were constructed the whole eastern part of the province would be flooded by the jamming of the ice at the dam. But to my mind there is a. more important element than the mere mercenary aspect of the case. The old historic river St. Lawrence is there, and we want the free navigation of that river. We do not want to go through any lock on the American side. We prefer to have it the same as it is at Sault Ste. Marie, and also the same as it is between Lakes Erie and Ontario. We want to go through canals on our own side and control them, we want free canals and the free navigation of the river, so that the products of our country may reach the ocean untrammelled by any dam. I would certainly recommend that this Bill be held over until the whole matter could be carefully looked info. I am satisfied that the minister will make as much progress with it as if he were to try to rush it through at the present time. I very much regret to see the anxiety displayed by a number of gentlemen who have no interest in the question, have never seen the river St. Lawrence or the rapids, and probably never will, to push this Bill through, though it concerns a work in which they can have no possible interest excepting an acquired interest.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think we can fairly state that this Bill came before this committee, if indeed it did not come before the House on its introduction, under false, nretenses. It occurs to me that every fear I have expressed in regard to this Bill has been confirmed. I venture to say that the St. Lawrence Power Company's Bill of 1901 passed through parliament without ever a thought being given to the possibility that it contained powers that would enable the company to dam the St. Lawrence river in connection with any other company that might be incorporated under an American charter. I will go farther and say that the very promoters of that Bill in 1901 had no thought of the greater scheme which they evidently now have, or which somebody for them has, in contemplation. Apparently these gentlemen have come to-the Department of Public Works and have asked for the approval of a plan. They surely would not go to the expense of procuring the necessary data to enable them to prepare the plans in the first place- even only to prepare them-without they thought that they had the power and authority from parliament to erect the works which are set forth in these plans. It must be apparent to every member of this committee that these applicants were and are under the impression that they were authorized by their own legislation to construct their dam on the St. Lawrence to the American boundary. Else why would

they prepare plans? They must, on laying their plans before the Minister of Public Works, have placed before him the authority under which they came. No man goes to the Minister of Railways and Canals seeking the approval of a route map unless he takes with him the act of this parliament authorizing the construction of the railway to be built on that route. I venture to assert that there would be no one so foolish as to go to the Minister of Public Works and ask him to approve of a plan unless he showed the minister the authority under which he wished to construct the works in accordance with those plans. Evidently they thought they had the power or the authority from this parliament. How many people in Canada thought they had it? We have read the discussions in the public newspapers in reference to this matter, we have read of the hearings that were had before the Waterways Commission; how many readers of these newspapers but were under the impression that this was preliminary to the applicants coming to parliament to seek legislation and to seek powers? No one ever dreamed that these people had these powers or thought they had the powers. It has been mentioned even by members of parliament that such a Bill would be before parliament. Evidently the applicants have no such idea, evidently they think that they have the whole matter arranged and that all they now need is the approval of plans. What is the use of submitting it to the Waterways Commission when the suggestion is made that these gentlemen have that power as far as this parliament is concerned? It has been repeatedly stated that this Bill does not authorize them to build dams. Certainly it does not. They do not seek to get such powers. Any objection which I have taken to this Bill has not been on any such ground, but it is for this reason I have stated that they had hoped to build this dam under the authority of the Act of 1901, when it was never contemplated by parliament that any such works should be so constructed, and when it is necessary that these people, who wish to work out this scheme, shall get supplementary powers, we should withhold such supplementary powers until we regulate in some way the legislation of 1901 with respect to the powers which they claim we gave them, -and which perhaps we did, to enable them to construct a dam on the St. Lawrence in conjunction with American legislation. That is the objection I have to the enactment of this legislation. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has asked, and very properly asked: Is there anv objection to having the plans laid before this committee before this legislation proceeds? I think that is a fair request and Mr. EMMERSON.
I think that the Minister of Public Works should accede to it because it is a fair proposition. What does this legislation mean? How many of us know? I do not. How many hon. members know what it does contemplate? It evidently means the transmission of power in connection with some scheme that is to be carried out under legislation already had from this parliament, and that legislation warranted the promoters in preparing plans for the carrying out of this scheme. What are those plans? It would give us and the country an insight into the objects and proposals of these applicants and would be only fair that every member of this committee should have the plans before him to see just what thev have in mind, what they propose and desire to carry out and what they wish us to give this legislation for now in order to enable them to carry it out to its full completion, because the generation of power without the ability to distribute and utilize it would be of no advantage to them. I would suggest that the committee should rise and before we further consider the matter the plans should be before us. It is an important matter. No Bill of a private nature more far reaching in its consequence has been brought to the notice of a committee of parliament for many vears. It affects not only our internal affairs, our provincial affairs, but it affects our international relations under a treaty of the empire. I submit that we should not be called on at this time to decide yea or nay with respect to this Bill, .we should first have an opportunity of viewing the plans.


Robert Laird Borden: I would suggest to the Minister of Finance that the committee ought to rise at this stage.


William Pugsley: I would yield at once to the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) if it were not for the fact that this Bill gives no authority whatever to construct any works on the St. Lawrence river, and for the further reason that the Prime Minister has made the statement to this House that before any authority is given to construct any dam in the St. Lawrence, the matter shall first be submitted to and approved of by this parliament. Nothing could be fairer than that. No matter what the company thinks its powers are, there is a reserve power vested in the Governor in Council, and that will not be exercised and this company allowed to go ahead until the whole matter is submitted to parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: The very fact that the minister has mentioned ought to give us pause. It would seem that it is too big a question to leave in the hands of the

Governor in Council for submission to parliament.


William Pugsley: I said it had to be submitted to parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I cannot conceive that the Minister of Public Works and the government would send the engineers of three different departments to investigate and report on it unless they were inclined to concur in the view of the St. Lawrence Power Company that authority exists at the present time. It seem a remarkable state of affairs to exist if the minister's statement is to be accepted without qualification. Here is a company which on the premises laid down by the minister has no power to build a dam on the St. Lawrence, and yet we find this government on the application of this company which has no statutory powers sending engineers of three, departments to investigate. Does any one imagine that this would have been done unless there was something more in the supposed authority and power than the minister has disclosed to usp Why should the minister, at the instance of people who, according to his statement, have absolutely no power to do anything of the kind, have caused to be sent the engineers of three departments to investigate and report on these plans?


Henry Robert Emmerson: Why is it left to the Waterways Commission?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes. There seems to be a great deal more at the back of this than any one suspected. I am astonished to learn that this project has gone so far without anything being known to parliament. It is not of such trivial importance as the minister suggests. At the present time a vessel can go from the ocean into the great lakes, and never leave Canadian waters. 'Under the proposals of the government nothing of the kind can take place because, as I said, the Minister-


William Pugsley: The same lock will exist on the Canadian side, all vessels going up through the river pass through that lock.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood from the scheme as disclosed to me by the minister that the lock would be on the American side.


William Pugsley: There will be two locks, one on the American side.


Robert Laird Borden: If I am not correct in my appreciation of what the minister said, I withdraw any argument on that point, but apart from that it is a very big proposal and one which concerns the commerce of this country from end to end, concerns every part of Canada, concerns the future interests of this country in several very important respects. Inasmuch as this Bill is not to go into force until pro-171
claimed by order in council, inasmuch as the minister himself has said that, according to his understanding, this company is to get its power from this source, why is there such tremendous haste to press this Bill? There seems to be no occasion for haste in any of the circumstances disclosed. I concur in the suggestion of my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmer-son) that the plans should be laid on the table of the House before this Bill which is only part of a greater project should be submitted to this committee.


William Stevens Fielding: In answer to the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, I am not aware that the government have made any proposals at all. This is a private Bill, and I have no desire to have it treated differently from any other private Bill. I have not followed the matter as closely as some hon. gentlemen. I am very much impressed by the fact that this Bill was examined by the Committee on Private Bills, that objection was taken, it was referred to the Conservation Commission, amendments were proposed and the committee, as I understand, unanimously reported the Bill.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, no.


William Stevens Fielding: It was so (stated in the House. At all events, the committee reported the Bill. There are occasions when members of the House who have given close personal attention to a matter feel free to go outside of the report of the committee, but the general trend of the House is that where a Bill is investigated and examined by a committee and reported, the judgment of the committee should be sustained. Speaking for myself, I see no objection to it going through. It is a private Bill, we have adopted it, and whatever the sense of the House may be, we may as well take it.


George Henry Cowan: The Minister of Public Works has announced that when this Bill is passed the government will have all the powers that are needed to enable this company to dam the St. Lawrence, and that all this company will have to do would be to submit the plans to the Department of Public Works and have them approved. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) told us there was no connection between the promoters of this Bill and the parties incorporated in the Bill in 1901 and he further said that the Act of 1901 was void. He told us also that the company incorporated in 1901 never developed power, and in that statement he was corrected by the hon. member for Stormont. But the Minister of Public Works let the feline out of the sack when he told us that this company far from being defunct had actually prepared plans and laid them before his department for approval, under, I presume, the navigable waters Act.


William Pugsley: Not at all.


George Henry Cowan: At any rate the plans were before the minister and the minister has been considering them, and apparently they are awaiting the approval of the^ government and the passage of this Bill. The Minister of Public Works has also stated that he would give authority to this company rather than to the province, because he says the province has no power to construct a dam to the boundary of the United States. But surely this parliament can invest the province with exactly the same powers that it may invest a private corporation with, and in view of the fact that the province is developing power at cost to supply the people cheaply, surely, if the minister were actuated by the proper spirit he would empower the province rather than a private corporation whose object is to make a profit. The Minister of Public Works also said that he would take the revenues to the Dominion rather than to the province, because as he understands it the ownership of the bed of the stream is in the Dominion.


William Pugsley: I did not say so; I said it was because the jurisdiction over these water-powers rests entirely with the Dominion parliament.


George Henry Cowan: I understood the minister to say that the ownership of the foreshore, down to the water at least, did not rest with the province.


William Pugsley: If the land was granted I did not think it did.


George Henry Cowan: If I remember right in Caldwell vs. Hurdman it was held that the province had the right to grant these water lots on the bed and foreshore of the Ottawa river which was a navigable stream. If in that case the title rested with the province it would seem to raise some question as to whether or not the title to the bed and foreshore of the St. Lawrence is not in the province of Ontario. It seems to me that this House instead of guessing at what .its rights are should defer discussion on the Bill until they are ascertained. Surely the Minister of Public Works is willing to give to the province a power which it is exercising in the public interest, surely he would prefer to give that power to the province rather than to a private corporation, surely the House would hesitate before it dams up and- annihilates a portion of an international waterway established such by solemn treaty between two nations; surely the government will not attempt to rush through this legislation without considering all these questions. If that be the case, the Canadian locks will no longer serve the purposes of t-ransnortation and we will be driven to using these locks built on the American side, the title to which is to be vested in the State of New York Mr. COWAN.
When the discussion began, I saw no particular reason why I should oppose the Bill, but I think abundant reasons have been developed in the course of the discussion, and no interest will suffer if the matter is allowed to remain until opportunity be given to examine the plans and to ascertain the status and rights of all par-ties.


George Taylor: I understood from the Minister of Public Works a few minutes ago that, when he was negotiating with the promoters of this scheme-the original company chartered in 1901-he declared that in case any arrangement should be agreed to, the Dominion treasury would receive as much as the state of New York. What I want to ask him is what provision lie has made to protect the citizens of this country. Would this company come under the Board of Railway Commissioners which would regulate the prices the Canadian public would have to pay?


William Pugsley: The company waited upon me through its representative, was the company called the St. Lawrence Power Company, incorporated by the state of New York. They were desirous of getting the requisite authority from the Canadian government and parliament to carry out their scheme. I stated to them-and they seemed disposed to acquiesce in the view-that, so far as my department was concerned, we should insist that the power should be equally divided or rather that at least one-half should be absolutely reserved for use on the Canadian side, and also that we should receive the same revenue as that derived by the stale of New York, and in addition that the rates should be under the control of the Board of the Railway Commission, so that both the public interest would be protected, and we would get our share of the revenue.


George Taylor: That is information which the hon. gentleman did not give us before. A moment ago when a question was put to him about the navigation of the river, he said that the locks were there, and the boats could go up as they do now. But in case this dam is built, and1 built at the head of the locks, and the water raised fifteen or twenty feet, how are the boats going to get up the Canadian side?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is misinformed. The plan submitted by the engineers show no such state of affairs. They refused to approve any plans which would interfere with the Canadian locks.


George Taylor: I know the canal and the locks, and all aDout it. If you build a dam to raise the water


William Pugsley: Whatever parliament will be asked to do-if the matter ever goes that far-the plans will all be submitted

for the information of the House. I would have no objection to submitting them at any time; but before parliament will be asked to take steps, the plans will be laid on the table.


George Taylor: We are asked to make a very important step now, and we ought to see the plans. It is now half past one in the morning, and in view of the fact that this Bill was before the Private Bills Committee and that committee made a report by no means unanimous, several amendments having been submitted, and only voted down by a majority of two or three


William Stevens Fielding: Was there a minority report?


George Taylor: No, but the minority did not approve of the committee's action, and the majority was a very slight one. As the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) says., we have had a great deal of new light since the Private Bills Committee made its report. No one knew in that committee that this company was part of the parent company of 1901, which was given the power of damming the river. That was never mentioned then.


William Pugsley: I am told it was mentioned and mentioned several times, in addition to having a letter from the chairman to that effect.


George Taylor: It was not admitted by the Minister of Public Works as he has admitted it to-night. Nobody knew that he had sent his engineers to look the ground over.


James Conmee: There would have been a bigger majority if that had been known.


George Taylor: My hon. friend knows better. The hon. member for Westmorland has expressed a different opinion. He admits that he has been enlightened by the information we have had from the Minister of Public Works, and so has every other hon. member. I certainly think that the Bill should stand over, and the opinion of the Minister of Justice be taken on the matter. Before we pass this legislation, which will enable the company to proceed under the Act passed in 1901, giving it full powers to go on, and build dams and wings and locks and anything it likes, we should hesitate, and take time for reflection.


Samuel Hughes: A little while ago the Minister of Public Works referred to a promise made by the Prime Minister. I have been endeavouring to find out what that promise is, but have not succeeded, and in view of the fact that this is rather an important Bill, I think the government should not press it through committee tonight. Since the Act of 1901 gives the corn-171*
pany power to build that dam, has not the Prime Minister's promise been violated, that the company could do nothing farther without coming to parliament?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend surely is not serious in putting that question? What the right hon. the Prime Minister said was that the matter would be laid before parliament, and parliament be asked to give its opinion upon it, but that referred to future action.


Samuel Hughes: But the company already has the authority, and does not need to go to parliament. It is independent of the Prime Minister.


William Pugsley: No, because it cannot anything until it gets its plans approved, and my right hon. colleague said that it could not get permission to go ahead until its application had been submitted to parliament.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the fact that this Bill had received the sanction of the Committee on Private Bills. Is he aware that developments have taken place here to-night which he did not hear of before?


William Stevens Fielding: I was not before the Committee on Private Bills, and so did not hear anything.


Samuel Hughes: Will the Minister of Public Works say that facts have not been developed to-night that were never heard before the Private Bills Committee?


William Pugsley: I am not able to admit that because, from the statements made, I would conclude that the Private Bills Committee was informed of everything material.


Samuel Hughes: Will my hon. friend not admit that he himself has made statements to-night which for the first time have been made to the country?


William Pugsley: I do not think so, because this matter has been in the press for months. A good many months ago it was reported that the engineers had considered the matter and had made a report; that that report had been referred back to them and they had made a new report which had gone to the Waterway Commission.


Samuel Hughes: The minister has kept tab on the press.


William Pugsley: I always read the papers.


Samuel Hughes: Was there any system by which all this was done and yet the House and the country kept in the dark? Will the minister tell me what is to be the height of this dam?


William Pugsley: Believing, as I did, that that had nothing to do with the Bill before

the House, I have not the information with me.


Samuel Hughes: The minister remembers so clearly what is in the newspapers, I should think he could remember a little item like that. Has he any report of the effect the raising of this water by the dam is likely to have on the Canadian shore and upon the Canadian locks?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Question.


Samuel Hughes: Hon. members opposite can earn their money easier than this.


William Pugsley: My view is that the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) is not acting in a manner worthy of himself and his standing in this House in making the vile insinuation with regard to gentlemen on this side-


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. member should not use the expression 'vile insinuation.'


William Pugsley: When an hon. member of this House


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I will not argue, Mr. Chairman, but at once withdraw the expression. But I think, on reflection, my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes), even though the hour is late and he is perhaps unconscious of what he says, when he realizes the extraordinary nature of the insinuation he has made, will withdraw it.


Samuel Hughes: If the minister will pay attention to the gentlemen behind Iiim, many of them from other provinces and who never saw the St. Lawrence rapids, and will try to keep them in order, I shall be glad. But I deny his right to lecture me in this House. I was asking, when I was interrupted by the unseemly conduct of gentlemen behind the minister


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman must withdraw that.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. gentleman should not use that expression.


Samuel Hughes: I will retract that, if you s&5


Some hon. MEMBERS: No conditions.


Samuel Hughes: I will withdraw it unconditionally. The conduct struck me as unseemly, but I will not use the expression. New, will the minister tell me the effect of tins dam on the Canadian shore between Cornwall and the Galops rapids?


Mr PUGSLEY.: I regret that I cannot give the information. These matters will be very carefully considered before the government takes action.


William Pugsley: 


John Dowsley Reid: I am surprised the minister wants to leave this question to be decided by his engineers. If we consider how the engineers, not only in his, but in other departments, have given decisions for some little time, I think it will be safer to leave the matter in the hands of hon. members of this House. In his own department, we have seen an engineer put an upset price of 20 cents a yard on dredging and that dredging afterwards said to be done at a reasonable price at 90 cents a yard. And we have investigations going on in the Public Accounts Committee in regard to the decisions of engineers on the Transcontinental, and the people have_ no great confidence so far as their workings are concerned. Now, here is a great work which the government is going to grant power to undertake-for, I take it ^ from what the minister has stated, that it is the intention of the government to grant this franchise to dam the St. Lawrence river.


William Pugsley: I have not given any intimation of that kind. The government has not decided the matter.


John Dowsley Reid: They could not get through first a Bill giving power _ to dam the St. Lawrence. That Bill will come after. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) tells us that this company had practically deceived us in bringing the matter before the committee. Let me tell the minister what the company did do. The promoters of this Bill went into every town, beginning at Prescott, and told the people they could not give them power unless the dam was put across the St. Lawrence. They took people down to Cornwall, paying all their expenses and entertained them. They have men employed in every town from Cornwall to Brockville to promote this scheme. They have newspapers subsidized throughout the Dominion to influence the public in favour of this work. I have heard on good authority that they have placed $2,000,000 simply to pay out for this great scheme. And let me tell the minister that the company behind this scheme is greater than all the railways and the Standard Oil Company put together. Here is an article in a magazine that explains what this trust is. I will read a little of it-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Read it all.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, perhaps I will. I think it will be interesting to gentlemen on the other side. For I have confidence in hon. members opposite that, if they knew what this scheme was, they would not go into it so lightly. I believe they want to know the facts and to do what is fair. There are many members opposite who do not know anything about this matter. But we who live along the St. Lawrence river know the conditions, and vre want the com-

mittee to treat us justly. Let me read part of a magazine article that will be interesting. It is headed: 'A gigantic new trust in sight ':	.
It is found in the great water-powers of the country. And those are to-day well on the way to control by a trust bigger than any that has ever been dreamed of; a trust that, if it shall be able to carry out the systematic plan now in. hand will be as wealthy as if it owned all the railroads of the nation, with standard oil and United States steel on top. Then a few score of the minor trusts tossed in for good measure.
This is the water-power trust. Its existence was first suspected by government officials five years ago. Since then it has been gathering in the best power sights in every part of the country. It has subsidiaries that operate in Canada. It has grown to such proportions, and its purpose to monopolize the water-power of a continent that has become so plainly apparent, that President Roosevelt thus referred to it not long ago in his veto of the James River Dam Bill:
The people of the country are threatened by a monopoly far more powerful because in far closer touch with their domestic and industrial life, than anything known to our experience. A single generation will see the exhaustion of our natural resources of oil and gas and such a rise in the price of coal as will make the prices of electrically transmitted water-power a controlling factor in transportation, in manufacturing, and in household lighting and heating.
President Roosevelt told congress that thirteen corporations or interests, centering in the General Electric and the Westinghouse Electric, now controlled one-third of the developed water-power of the country, and added:
This astonishing consolidation has taken place practically within the last five years. The movement is still in its infancy, and unless it is controlled the history of the oil industry will be repeated in the hydro-electrio power industry, with results far more oppressive and disastrous to the people. It is true that the great bulk of our potential waterpower is as yet undeveloped, but the sites which are now controlled by combinations are those which offer the greatest advantages and therefore hold a strategic position.
That message said President Roosevelt, a few days after it had been delivered, was one of the most important in my whole administration. This proposal, now far under way to accomplishment, of monopolizing the nations water-power, has a significance which ought to be made clear to the people.
Up at the top of this scheme stand the General Electric Company, with $65,000,000 capital and $15,000,000 funded debt, and the Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company with $28,000,000 stock and $29,000,000 funded debt. The General Electric owns all the shares of the Edison and Thompson-TTous-ton Company and the British Thompsor-Hous-ton; the Sprague Electric Company, the Stanley Electric Manufacturing Company, and the Electric Bond and Share Company are controlled; and the company is identified in various ways with many other corporations.
Relations between the General Electric and Westinghouse are indicated by the fact that since 1896 their patents have been pooled. The Westinghouse Company controls the stock of British, Canadian and French Westinghouse Companies, both General Electric and Westinghouse interests appear in the officiary or directorates of the numerous corporations that are broadly denominated as related to the water-power trust. The investigations by the government have caused the following companies to he classified as of general electric affiliation:	,
United Electric Securities, _ Electrical Securities Corporation, Electric Bond and Share Company, Schenectady Power Company, Caroline Power and Light Company, Rockingham (North Carolina) Power Company, Animas Power and Water Company (Colorado), Central Colorado Power Company, Montgomery (Alabama) Light and Water Power Company, Summit County Power Company (Colorado), Butte Electric and Power Company (Montana), Montana Power Transmission Company, Madison River Power Company (Montana), Billings and Eastern Montana Power Company, Washington Water Power Company (Washington and Idaho), Great Western Power Company (California); besides a number of others whose connection with general electric is indicated. _
The Westinghouse group, as classified by the government investigators, includes the Security Investment Company (New York), The Electric Properties Company (New York), the ' Smith interests/ the Atlantic Water and Electric Power Company, Ontario Power Company (Canadian), Niagara, Book port and Ontario Power Company (New York), Electric Power Securities Company (New York).
There are a great many more that I will not read. Also the power at Massena on the American side is owned by this same combination. The Minister of Public Works, if he will tell what he knows, will stand up here and tell us that the St. Lawrence Power Company is in this same power trust.


William Pugsley: I do not know anything of the kind.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, he can find out if he inquires. Let us go into the history of this St. Lawrence Power Company. Four or five years ago this company could have been taken over by the government for about $300,000. In a report in the Department of Railways and Canals, he will find that the question came up as to the lighting of the Cornwall canal. And by the way, that has been referred to as a contract given by the Conservative party and which his government has to carry out. Let me tell the minister about that contract. That contract was given in .Tune, 1896, just before the Conservative party went out of power.


William Pugsley: What do you suppose it was given them for?


John Dowsley Reid: I have no idea what it was given for. The minister hints that

perhaps it was given for some wrong purpose. The minute the Liberal party came into power they cancelled several contracts on the canal that were given in June. There were contracts let a few days before the government went out of power for the building of canals which this government promptly cancelled. They did not cancel this contract but about four weeks before the next election an order in council was asked for by the then Minister of Railways and Canals providing that permission be given him to bring into force a contract to pay the St. Lawrence Power Company $50,000 yearly for lighting the Cornwall canal. After they had given the minister power to pay $50,000 a year, two or three weeks before the election, the contract was changed from 21 years to 84 years. Will the Minister of Public Works tell me whv that was done prior to the election of 10"U?


William Pugsley: I reallv cannot,


John Dowsley Reid: Not exactly. He would have a better idea than I why these things were done because he has been a minister not only here, but in the New Brunswick government and similar things have taken place under his own administration.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend is a past master.


John Dowsley Reid: No. I have not had the experience that the minister has. This combination on the other side want to- dam the St. Lawrence river. They knew that if they came to this parliament to get permission to do it they could not obtain it with the St. Lawrence poweT company in existence. M. P. Davis had his waterpower there. He would immediately raise the question that this was going to interfere with his rights, and the result as that this combination had to give M. P. Davis, some say $750,000 and others say $1,000,000, simply for this power that he had in order to get his franchise and thus prevent any opposition from that source. When the Railway Commission come to deal with this matter the owners of the St. Lawrence Power will say that they have been obliged to pay $1,000,000 for it, that they have their money invested in it, that they have to get a certain revenue and, therefore, the commission should fix a price on what it cost them to purchase the power from M. P. Davis. The result would be that the people of eastern Ontario would be subject to this great monopoly. As far as the transmission line is concerned, why did they not tell the people in Prescott and Brockville what they told the committee? They went to Prescott and Brockville and told the people that they had not any power to sell at Cornwall, that power must be developed Mr. J. D. REID.
and that it was absolutely necessary to dam the St. Lawrence. In the committee the other day they said that they had plenty of power now developed at Cornwall under the present franchise. Ever since that power has been developed at Cornwall we have wanted them to run a transmission line to Prescott and Bro-ck-ville, but they never would do so. M. P. Davis and others said there was not sufficient power required to pay for running the transmission line up there. They never thought it necessary to run a transmission line up there until this scheme of damming the St. Lawrence was brought to the front and they thought that such an agitation would take place amongst the people of the St. Lawrence counties that the members of this House would grant them the right to dam the river. On the other side of the river at Massena they have an immense water-power that they are using at the present time. The minister knows that locality well. There is what is called the South Sault on the American side. It could be dammed and not 'hurt navigation at all and then it would probably develop 200,000 or 300,000 horse-power. I think the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. R. Smith) knows where I mean.


Robert Smith: I would not endorse the hon. gentleman's statement that you could develop 200,000 or 300,000 horsepower. It is estimated, I believe, that you could develop 65,000 horse-oower and that would be conditional upon the building of a wing dam.


John Dowsley Reid: Well it may be that you could only develop 65,000 horse-power at the South Sault.


Robert Smith: That is if the big dam is continued across. It will be about 30,000 with a dam only at the South Sault.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, I do not know, but it would not hurt navigation at all. If this company are willing to take the power and bring it along the river front they have, according to their statement-in the Private Bills 'Committee, sufficient power at Cornwall at present to- supply all the river front and they have the power at Massena as well. But this whole thing is part of -a great scheme. According to the papers right here in Ottawa there is a company being formed. I have only read it in the newspapers, but I know from the gentlemen who are connected with it that it is true. Senator Edwards and a number of other gentlemen are organizing a company that will develop 500,000 horse-power along the Ottawa river. From Ottawa to Prescott it is 52 miles. From Prescott to Cornwall it is 60 miles.


William Pugsley: Where are they to get
500,000	horse-power near Ottawa?


John Dowsley Reid: I saw a fair estimate and the statement gave the falls and so on. I asked Senator Edwards the other day if he intended doing it, and he said certainly, and that he expected in about a year to have this power supply ready.
I	suggested in the Private Bills Committee that the St. Lawrence Power Company are the ones who are going to furnish this power. They admitted in the Private Bills Committee that they were going to do it through the company at Cornwall, and I asked them why not bring in a Bill to amend clause li in their charter. Clause
II	gives them power to run a transmission line about 12 miles west and down to Soulanges. Why not bring in a Bill to have that amended so that they could extend their transmission line to Brockville and Kingston? But that would not answer their purpose. I wonder if the minister saw the first Bill. This Bill is not like the first one.


William Pugsley: This Bill is perfectly harmless.


John Dowsley Reid: About as harmless as the minister. They would not do that, and that showed that there is a scheme behind it. The minister has let the cat out of the bag. I cannot understand why the minister wants to force this Bill through without giving the members an opportunity of seeing the plans.


William Pugsley: The minister is not forcing the Bill through, he has nothing to do "with it except as a member of the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister knows that if he asked to have the committee rise it would rise at once.


William Pugsley: It is not for me to say if the committee shall rise or not.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the Minister of Finance should give us an opportunity of looking into this scheme, and should not try to press us too hard to-night.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not pressing the Bill one way or the other, but I would like to see some progress. There has been a very fair discussion, and my own judgment is that the House should divide. The Bill need not go to a third reading to-night, it could stand until another day, and there would be ample opportunity to discuss the matter further.


John Dowsley Reid: We should have an opportunity of looking at the plans and seeing the general position.


Robert Smith: Has the hon. gentleman never seen the plans?


John Dowsley Reid: I never saw them.


Robert Smith: They have been published in many newspapers in the last two years, and the promoters have explained them in the hon. gentleman's own town before the International Waterways Commission.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not seen the plans, and the promoters knew I was opposed to the scheme and I suppose would not show them to me. As- to the newspaper plans, no newspaper would publish the large plans that would come before the government.


Richard Blain: If the plans were published in the newspapers it would ue under the authority of the Minister of Public Works. I am surprised they should be so published beiore being submitted to the House. In wnat newspapers were they published.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend would like to find out also whether they were published in Conservative newspapers as well.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is very suspicious on a point on which he is very guilty.


William Pugsley: I did not know they were published and I have not seen them in the newspapers. In connection with this Bill we have nothing to do with them as this is merely a transmission line.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Has the minister considered that the tourist passenger traffic going down the St. Lawrence will be interfered with, and also the large rafts of timber? Does he remember that the International Waterways Commission feared an ice jam if a dam were erected in Niagara river near Fort Erie, and would there not be a similar danger of damage to property on the St. Lawrence river if this dam were erected?	.


William Pugsley: I did not introduce the Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The minister is largely responsible for its introduction.


William Pugsley: Not at all. If the question of approving of works in the St. Lawrence should come before me as minister I shall feel it my duty to give all these matters my most careful consideration. The Bill gives no power to dam the St. Lawrence, or to place any kind of obstruction in that river.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I suggested some time ago that the plans setting out this scheme should be laid before us before we are compelled to reach a decision on this Bill!. The Minister of Finance who is leading the House said he had no objection personally to that suggestion.
1 Mr. FIELDING. No.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is a fair request and if the Bill is allowed to stand for the present no harm can be done. The Senate adjourns on Wednesday next until the 6th of April, and consequently there will he no delay in the final passage of the measure. It seems to me that too much of a party tinge has been given to this question. I did not consider it a party matter at all and before I knew the opinion of other members I formed my own judgment. I am honest and sincere in desiring to see these plans before the Bill is passed. 1 would go home, but I do not want to run away from my convictions. If the committee should now rise it would add to our good health and good humour.


William Pugsley: We are all good humoured.


Henry Robert Emmerson: We are trying to be, hut we are not any more than we can help.


Mr. BLACK.: The procedure to-night is a repetition of the procedure before the Private Bills Committee. We considered it for a whole month there and there was a certain group of members who were bound to block the Bill, one member going so far as to say that he was there specially for that purpose. I have listened attentively to every speech delivered to-night and there has not been one single argument or idea advanced that was not advanced before the committee and fully considered. I can tell these hon. gentlemen that those of us who are in favour of the Bill will stay here until Saturday night if necessary.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Black) was elected to preside over the Private Bills Committee in the absence of the regular chairman and before the preamble had been fully discussed he insisted on taking the vote of the committee.


Judson Burpee Black: The preamble was not discussed until all the other clauses were discussed.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When the hon. gentleman could not get a vote on the preamble he said they would dispense with the passing of the preamble and discuss the clauses one by one. I do not know what the hon. gentleman's interest in the Bill is, but he displayed the same anxiety about it in the Private Bills Committee that he does here. There must be some overwhelming, compelling interest in this Bill; there seems to be some personal canvass and some personal interest in it, because we have here this morning five cabinet ministers and more members than there have been in the House for a long time.


An hon. MEMBER.: What about your side?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: We are protecting the public interest. No private Bill in my experience has received such favourable at-Mr. FIELDING.
tention at the hands of the government since the Canada Life Bill which was an attack on the rights of certain policy-holders. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works when these plans were first submitted to him and how long he has had ' them ' under his consideration?


William Pugsley: The first plans were submitted, I should think, nearly two years ago. Then there were amended plans which must have been submitted six months ago.


Robert Laird Borden: When were the engineers sent?


William Pugsley: I should think eight or ten months ago.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That should excite the suspicion of the House more than ever. The fact that the Minister of Public Works has had the plans under consideration two years, that the engineers have reported some eight months ago, and that this House has not received any information concerning these plans or reports, is certainly very extraordinary. Surely it is important that we should have all that information which has been so long before the minister. Why not allow this matter to stand over until the House has been given possession of it? We have had the whole day taken up with this private Bill, when there are public Bills in the names of private members which are kept back on that account. The plans, which the minister has had so long, were never submitted to the Private Bills Committee. Surely that committee should have been put in possession of them before making its report. You cannot sever the two companies. The promoters are the same in each, and the names are almost identical. One of the great objections I have to the Bill is the large power of expropriation which it gives and then the Railway Act is made applicable to the company where-ever possible. In section 151 of that Act there are 17 subsections. Subsection C allows the company to expropriate any property whatever for its purposes. Subsection L allows it to divert or alter the course of any river, stream, or watercourse, or highway, for certain purposes. All these powers are given to this company under the terms of this Bill. Judging by the interest taken in it by the cabinet ministers, this measure has the endorsation of the government, and the government is determined to press it through at all hazards. But surely, in the public interest, it ought to be allowed to stand over and hon. members given an opportunity to inspect the plans.


Mr. SEELEY.: I have no disposition to prevent discussion, and so long as any member has anything advantageous to

place before the House we should remain. I think, so far as I can understand the situation, this is a Bill for a transmission line only and although I am not familiar with the particular section of the country it covers, judging by our experience in the vicinity of the Niagara peninsula, the more transmission lines we have in operation the better for the community. Take the cities of Hamilton and Dundas, perhaps the only two towns in Canada where we have electric competition, they are the two that have the cheapest electric energy. And I am glad to say that they are the two chief localities sought after by manufacturing and other interests, as a location for their establishments. What is good for our locality ought to be good for others. We are all pleased with the introduction of hydro-electric power into our vicinity. It has created competition, and we have the benefit of that competition. The only objection that can be urged against the HydroElectric Commission is their method of obtaining right of way and the unfair prices they pay the farmers. I can see no reason why the company under discussion should not have a transmission line in the vicinity of the St. Lawrence river and the Hydro-Electric Commission as well. The two lines should give better results than one; and while the Hydro-Electric Commission do not propose to make any profit, but deliver the energy to the consumer at actual cost, there is a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether that is the cheapest method. In Hamilton, for instance, the Cataract Power Company offer freely to give power to the consumer at 10 per cent less than the lowest hydro-electric cost. A week ago Saturday I passed some construction work of the hydro-electric and I am satisfied that the footings they were putting in cost three times more than private corporations would pay or than it would have cost the hydroelectric had they done the work as they did some other work last year. All this extra expenditure on construction is added to the cost, and that no doubt accounts for private corporations being able to deliver power 10 per cent cheaper and still have a profit. But be that as it may, I think that competition is a splendid thing. Let us have the hydro-electric, and this transmission line, and a hundred others if possible As to the amount of revenue the government should get out of the St. Lawrence powers, if one half goes to Canada, that is perhaps all we are entitled to. But I do not think the government should pride themselves about getting a very large toll. I think that the amount of revenue would be better applied to the cheapening of power to the consumer through the Dominion Railway Commission. For these reasons, if this company is entirely on its own
account, as the Bill before the House shows*, and is a transmission line, it certainly cannot do any harm to give it opportunity to construct a transmission line and let the trials of strength be between their transmission lines rather than between the two sides of this House. If the HydroElectric Commission should have to come to this House for authority to build a line along side it, and in competition with it, I would be delighted to give them that privilege, and see the two companies and as many more as can be had, to build transmission lines and give competition and increased accommodation and energy, which would be for the advantage of this country and stimulate our industrial development.


Samuel Hughes: I would urge upon the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) will permit him, to adjourn the House.


William Pugsley: So early?


William Stevens Fielding: Will the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) see if he can get the minister's (Mr. Pugsley) consent?


Samuel Hughes: I know that the smile of the Minister of Finance is very influential, but when the Minister of Public Works frowns and curls his brow, even the Minister of Finance must sit up.


William Pugsley: If the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) would do a little more work and a little less talk, he would get through.


Mr HUGHES.: But I have data here that, ' I am sure, will be of interest to the members of the House. Now, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman), one of the quiet, modest, unassuming ministers, is possibly doing more to benefit this country than is the Minister of Public Works' (Mr. Pugsley). The Minister of Public Works we find connected with sawdust wharfs, electrical development, the damming of the St. Lawrence-everything where you find the promoter and the man behind the machine. But the Minister of Inland Revenue is quietly developing the peat industry. Water-power is not our only source of energy. It is true that, with'the power that can Be developed by the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, we shall have 6,000,000 horse-power capable of development.
Mr. PUGSLEY". Half an hour ago, it was 3,000,000.


Samuel Hughes: I said 3,000,000 within thirty miles of the city. I really must repeat my statements, if the minister pays so little attention to them as he has evidently done to this one. I said 3,000,000 horse-power already available; 3,000,000 more through the construction of the Georgian Bay canal-and three and three are

six. I was about to point out that there are also thousands oi acres of peat in the eastern part of Ontario and in the adjoining province of Quebec. The Minister of Inland Revenue, with commendable honesty and energy, is assisting in the development of the peat industry. There is every hope that the time is near at hand when, with the producer gas from peat,, we shall be able to produce energy at one-half the cost of producing it by water-power. Why, then, this mad haste to dam the St. Lawrence? It must mot be forgotten also that other sources of energy are opening to us. Radium, which is now being produced on a commercial scale, opens wonderful. possibilities for the future. Scientific journals of this week tell us that a pinch of radium, such as will lie on the thumbnail, will drive a 15,000-ton ship at fifteen knots an hour for 6,000 miles continuously. But science is still advancing, and another material, .called, I believe, polonium, has been discovered which is one thousand times more powerful than is radium. WTith all these opportunities opening before us, why destroy the navigation of the St. Lawrence for the sake of a power scheme? Why court international complications with the United States in this project of damming the St. Lawrence?
Reference has been made to this Bill when it was before the Committee on Private Bills. I have distinct recollection, when in the Railway Committee, of seeing gentlemen rush into that committee and hustle the fellows out to the Private Bills Committee, and there, without having the slightest knowledge of what they were voting on, they would put through a Bill or vote down a motion for amendment. That was what at first excited the suspicion of members of this House-the fact that these gentlemen, led by some of the ministers, who threw their whole soul into iU-the Minister of Public Works or, if not he, the horny-handed son of toil, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) who would be looking after it, voted in this way. I say this first excited the suspicion of honest men. It appears from this discussion tonight that the Minister of Public Works has had this matter of damming the St. Lawrence at his finger ends for two years, yet has never taken the House of Commons into his confidence. This justifies the conduct of members of the opposition in fighting this Bill. And I can give the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) my word that he will find that, from one end of this country to the other, more than the Liberal-Conservatives are a little surprised as to developments that have taken place in this matter.
Now I asked the minister if he could give me some elevations, and he could not, I will be pleased to give him some knowledge. The elevation of the River St. Lawrence Mr. HUGHES.
at Cornwall is 155 feet at the site where the dam is. The elevation of the Grand Trunk station at Cornwall is 191 feet; the elevation at Mille Roches is 225 feet, at Morrisburg 268 feet, at Iroquois 242 feet, at Prescott 247 feet. The great rise in the stream occurs in the -first eight or ten miles above Cornwall. Now I am satisfied that, from the elevation of the country, from the lowness of the banks on the Canadian side, if this dam is erected and if an ice jam occurs, there is no telling how many miles the whole country between the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers may be flooded.


David Bradley Neely: I rise to a point of order. The Bill under discussion has nothing to do with elevations or with building dams. The hon. member is discussing matters wholly foreign to the Bill before the House, and I ask your ruling.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The discussion has certainly taken a very wide range. The item that has been called is section 1, and there is also a motion that the committee rise and report progress. It appears to me that arguments have been brought to bear on this particular question referring to improvements on the St. Lawrence, that were not very relevant, and yet they appeared sufficiently relevant to be allowed. While I regret the width and range of the debate, yet I do not feel at liberty to rule it out of order.


Samuel Hughes: I had nearly completed the elevation idea in the absence of a profile. But there is another aspect. War might possibly occur between Canada and the United States, and it might be necessary, in the interest of Canada, that the free navigation of that river should be maintained. It would be a standing menace to peace between these two countries if that river was dammed. In case of war Canada should have free control of the St. Lawrence. It is impossible to-day for any enemy to cross the river for a number of miles above Cornwall. We have an impassable barrier, in the Long Sault rapids. Our frontier is much more easily defended by having the St. Lawrence unimpeded by dams than it would be if a dam were constructed there and a lake created which could be easily crossed in boats instead of the rapids which now exist. The shipment of the produce of our country is carried on to a greater extent in boats than it formerly was, and the waterways will become the great highways of commerce in the future. Therefore, we must preserve the River St. Lawrence unimpeded in the interest of transportation. To-day freighters laden with grain go through the Long Sault rapids in the time th'at they would be getting through the first lock of the canal if they had to go down through the canal system.


Robert Smith: Did the hon. gentleman ever hear of a boat laden with grain going through these rapids?


Samuel Hughes: I have been on freighters when they went" through the rapids, Freighters go through these rapids every week in the summer time.


Robert Smith: Grain freighters do not.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman will not deny that freighters go through these rapids in summer time?


Robert Smith: If they only drew six or seven feet of water they might go through.


John Dowsley Reid: Nine feet.


Robert Smith: No, not nine feet.


Samuel Hughes: There are only two points in the rapids where there is any possibility of hitting at less than nine feet. A few charges of dynamite will clear the channel, and permit vessels drawing, from twelve to fifteen feet to pass down. Does the hon. gentleman not know that the Long Sault Rapids have fifty feet of water throughout the greater part of them? Therefore, I maintain that in the interest of honest government we should stop this charter hunting, this charter-mongering, this handing over, without any plausible excuse, of the rights and interests of this country to men who have never contributed one dollar to its upbuilding. The Minister of Public Works, if he were true to the interests of Canada, instead of sitting here to-night engineering this scheme through, would stand up and fight these people, and compel them to come here and show what they are going to do. If he had the interests of the country at heart would he be here to-night engineering this scheme to dam this river to the detriment of the Dominion government and in the interests of a foreign corporation? No, he would stand shoulder to shoulder with the opposition in fighting this company and insisting that these men should not be granted the corporate powers, which they are now seeking. That is where the Minister of Public Works should be if he were a true patriot, instead of the true friend of charter hunters.


Richard Blain: I asked the Minister of Public Works what newspapers these plans were published in in Ontario, and he was good enough to make the answer that he knew nothing about the publication of the plans in any newspapers. I would like to ask the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Robert Smith) in what newspapers these plans were published. I would like my hon. friend to state in what newspapers these plans were published so that we could send to the library and have them here because it is almost impossible to arrive at any sound conclusion in the absence of the plans.


Robert Smith: The particular publication that I saw myself was in the Cornwall ' Standard ' but I was informed by others that they had seen them in certain Toronto papers. When the promoters applied to the International Waterways Commission, first at Buffalo, and then at Toronto, these plans were produced, and the newspapers as a matter of news, and of enterprise copied them.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: What date?


Robert Smith: Hon. gentlemen will remember the sitting of the International Waterways Commission some weeks ago. There is to be another sitting to take further evidence in Montreal in a few days.


Richard Blain: Surely the hon. gentleman who suggested that there was unreasonable opposition on this side of the House was not serious? The strongest language and the most vigorous opposition to this Bill have come from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) a member of the Private Bills Committee who said that, the new points which have come up for discussion to-night are a great surprise to him and the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) who stated that the Bill was introduced under false pretenses. I appeal again to the Minister of Finance to grant the request not onlv of this side of the House, but of the ex-Minister of Railways.


William Stevens Fielding: If this were the final stage I could understand the obiections, but the Bill was discussed at length before the Private Bills Committee and has been discussed the greater part of to-day. No one can say there has been any lack of the fullest opportunity for discussion and I cannot see what the plans have to do with this Bill. I think we ought to divide, that we ought to dispose of the matter at this stage. The Bill need not then go to the third reading at once and there would be amiple opportunity for hon. gentlemen to place themselves on record on the third reading. "


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister think we are going to pass all the clauses of this Bill to-night?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know why we should not.


Samuel Hughes: Not on your life.


Richard Blain: I would call the minister's attention to the objections of his political friends which I cited.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know of any sides in this matter. This is not a party

541S
matter. If these hon. members had not heard of these important points earlier they have had no lack of information on them during the last two hours.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Public Works has admitted that there is a scheme to dam the St. Lawrence, and that this Bill is part of the scheme.


William Pugsley: No.


John Dowsley Reid: When we have these plans they will show whether it is part of the scheme or not. There must be some object in trying to shove this Bill through without the members understanding it.


William Stevens Fielding: No private Bill of the present session has received so much discussion.


Samuel Hughes: Or needed it so much.


William Stevens Fielding: That may be so, but at all events it certainly is time now to endeavour to get on with the public business.


John Dowsley Reid: It is all very well to talk .about reserving half of the power for Canada, but Canada does not need half of this 30,000 horse-power now, and it will be exported to the United States, and vested rights would intervene and we will never be able to get that power back. The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) said he was prepared to sit here until Saturday night. Well, we on this side are prepared to do the same. I know that the govern^ ment are anxious to get on with some government business, but this will not help them. It is now a quarter past three in the morning and we have to meet at three p.m. If the suggestion I have made be accepted, this Bill will go through in much less time on Monday than it possibly can now. Let the committee rise and the plans be brought down and laid on the table, and let the Minister of Public Works consult with the Department of Justice before proceeding further with the measure; and on Monday next the Bill will go through in less time than it has the slightest chance of doing now.


William Pugsley: I am always glad to meet an offer of compromise, but you can never compromise if one side insists on having everything its own way. Our hon. friend wants something unreasonable. He wants us to bring down plans which might relate to some other Bill. There are none in connection with this Bill.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman has admitted himself that this Bill and the other one were practically the same Bill.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend onght to be ingenuous enough to suggest some other way out of the difficulty. I have always said that before any work will be Mr. FIELDING.
commenced on the St. Lawrence, the company will have to come here and get legislative authority.


Samuel Hughes: But the minister's word is not statute law.
Mr: TURRIFF. Early in the discussion I said that in my opinion it would be advisable for the Bill to stand over in order that we might ascertain if the statements made by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) were well founded. I am still of the opinion, and am prepared to vote that way. At the same time I am not prepared to sit here all night and day simply for the purpose of obstructing. I want to vote for what I really think is right. This is a private Bill, and I do not consider that in voting against the majority on this side, I am voting in any way against the government or Liberal party. But I might say to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) that if a member on this side happens to vote with him on any subject, it does not help that member to pat him on the back. It only makes it a little more difficult for the man who wants to take an independent position. If hon. members opposite do not wish to take a vote, I would suggest as a compromise that we pass the preamble of the Bill, and that the committee should then rise.


Andrew Broder: There are one or two clauses that require to be amended. Sup-pose we should allow the preamble to pass and put the Bill through the other stages later on, I would want it understood that the proposed amendments may be moved.


William Stevens Fielding: Undoubtedly my hon. friend would have to give notice. The Bill would then be referred -back and he would be at liberty to do that at any stage. I would undertake to say the third reading would not be pressed until the hon. gentleman gave his notice. Let me suggest, that if there be any particular clause specially objectionable, let the clause be held over and let the committee make progress with the rest of the Bill.


Samuel Hughes: We would then be debarred from discussing the general features of the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman wmuld be debarred from discussing the clauses already passed, but not the clauses he wishes to hold over.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As I understand, by reference to some of the papers, in the month of February when the commission met in Toronto, they made a report. Did the Minister of Public Works have that report sent to them?


William Pugsley: The commissioners did not make any report.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: ' Would it not be wise to investigate some of the statements made by the commissioners. In taking up the Cornwall 'Standard' of Friday, February 25, I find that, during the discussion, chairman Gibbons explained the Act introduced in the United States congress to authorize the construction of this work said it was subject to a special provision by which the powers of the company could be taken away at any time if they interfered with national interests. There is certainly no such provision in this Bill:
And that the commencement of this work was subject to the consent of the Canadian government, he thought, and if the commission came to the conclusion that the scheme was practicable and feasible, and would not interfere with the interests of. navigation, that we might assume that the Canadian government would be as astute as the United States government in protecting the interests of our oountry.
The Minister of Public Works knows that when the commission met in Toronto, the strongest objection was raised along different lines. As far as the commission are concerned, I think they should be made aware of these different statements. I have just picked up a few and judging from what I have read, the Montreal Harbour Commission is strongly opposed to this Bill going through.


William Pugsley: He does not mean this Bill.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Am I to understand that several members from Montreal tonight were quite willing to get up and do their utmost to stop the passage of this measure? One of them made that statement on a front bench. If that is the position we are in, that several Quebec members are strongly opposed to this measure, and have not the liberty to speak on it, and the Montreal Harbour Commission, and the Light, Heat and Power Company are opposed to it-


James Conmee: Quite naturally.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: We have heard nothing about these objections. Has the commission had placed before it the fact that this scheme will lower the water in the St. Lawrence? Of course that may not seem, to some hon. gentlemen, of great importance. It is of great importance, and, in addition, some of the navigation companies have been sending in the strongest kind of condemnation of this Bill. So, it is not an unreasonable request that this Bill should be -allowed to remain over, and 1 hope the Minister of Public Works will see the justice of that request and accede to it.


James Conmee: I think tnat hon. gentlemen ought to consider that this matter
has been before the House for a couple of months. It has been fully discussed before the Private Bills- Committee. This is not a question of the navigation of the St. Lawrence or the building of a dam. The discussion to-night has been entirely wide of the Bill. It is the suspicion that this Bill may involve questions of navigation and the constructing of a dam across the river that causes this discussion.


Richard Blain: Did not the commission take all these matters into consideration?


James Conmee: What the commission had before them was the building of a dam and not this Bill.


Richard Blain: Are they not so connected as to be inseparable??


James Conmee: I do not think so. No doubt, as the minister has said, there may be in view the obtaining of power from its development at the Long Sault rapids. But even so, we have the word of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) that before anything is done, everything will be brought before this parliament. The company will have to get a Bill under these circumstances.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Under the Act of 1901 have not they got the authority to dam the St. Lawrence?


James Conmee: The American Bill provides that the consent of the Canadian parliament must be had.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: They have already got our consent.


James Conmee: No, they have no ratification of plans; they cannot build a dam.


William Sora Middlebro: I cannot understand why there is such persistent opposition to allowing this Bill to go over. It cannot be because the company want to make use of this lifeless transmission line, because they cannot make use of it until tne plans are approved by the Minister of Public Works and the government. But I believe the reason the government are pushing this Bill so strongly is apparent. If the company had the power under the Act of 1901, the 'power thev are now asking, they would not be here. That law does not give them the power to build transmission lines within a municipality, except by that municipality's consent. This Bill proposes t-o give them that power subject to the usual expropriation powers of the Railway Act. It is only by expropriation powers that they can force their transmission lines through the municipalities. They have the horse in the shape of the St. Lawrence power; they want us to give them the harness to put on that horse. And then they will have

everything they require as completely as though they had had it given them under a special Bill. But if they were to come now asking for these combined powers, in our present knowledge of what is involved and with our present judgment, would we give them these powers? I say we would not. We have no right to give them these powers, then, under the plea of a mere supplementary Bill. What is the position of the two parties? It is said this is not a party question. I cannot understand then why members of the cabinet will remain here until a quarter to four in the morning to do-what? To give private individuals the power to make money out of a public asset of this country as against the HydroElectric Commission, which proposes to utilize these powers for the benefit of the public. No municipality has asked the government to nass this Bill. The 'Globe1 newspaper, the representative of the Liberal party, has protested in the most strenuous terpis against the passing of the Bill. Can any member of this House on the other side say that his position is in the interests of the public, standing as he does against the Hydro-Electric Commission, a body which was incorporated for the very purpose of conserving these water-powers and giving power to the public at cost, without the intervention of the middleman? It is idle for my hon. friends opposite to say that we are here for the purpose of obstruction only. We are trying to further the policy inaugurated by the Whitney government which has been supported, not only by a vote of 65 to 17 in the legislature, but by a popular majority of 100,000 in the province.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is honest.


William Sora Middlebro: Quite as honest as the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) being here in the interest of the middlemen. I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works when he conceived the idea that this company was going to pay as much for power as the state of New York is Charging the company on the other side of the line? I assume that policy was conceived after the statements made by the member for Westmorland whereby it was proved that the state of New York were charging the companies over there not only a lump sum but paying a horse-power rate therefor. On the other side of the line they charge a large annual sum for the use of natural resources: on this side we get the benefit of the utilization of those powers, and the people get an annual sum in the shape of cheaper electricity as it is administered by the Hydro-Electric Commission.


Samuel Hughes: A little time ago the
Minister of Public Works made the statement that this was not a government mea-Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
sure but a private Bill. I would like the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Finance to point out in the history of the parliament of Canada where five ministers of the Crown sat up all night fighting in the interests of a private Bill. I tell the Minister of Public Works that this is a government measure. He has confessed that for two years he has been carrying on secret negotiations with gentlemen who are behind the power scheme to dam the St. Lawrence, and he has never once given the people of Canada that knowledge which we squeezed out of him to-night. In the title attributed to the Sovereign of England are to be found the words 'Defender of the Faith'. The Minister of Public Works, I am afraid, will go down to history with the label plastered over his crest:	'Defender of
United States trusts'. He will go down to history as the man who sat up all night in order to betray, by his actions, the rights of the people of Canada in the waterway of the St. Lawrence river. He will go down as the man who engineered the closing of the St, Lawrence to the people of Canada in the interests of United States corporations and trusts and not as the man who stood up to defend the rights of the people of this country. He will go down as the man who increased the freight rates on the produce of the farmers, increased the passenger rates on the farmers, and closed up that magnificent river which has been the delight of tourists in all periods of the nation's history. He will go down as the man who increased the cost of electric power by handing it over to a gigantic monopoly. He will be known as the man who stood cheek by jowl with the corporate interests and trusts of the United States. He will go down in history, not as a traitor in war, not as a man who would serve his country in time of war, but as the man who in time of peace, gave to the United States the enormous advantage which would accrue to them if war should ever occur between the two nations. We wondered why the Liberal members were so active on that committee. We thought it was an ordinary transmission Bill, until we saw the canvassing and the drumming up of members to come down and vote, then our suspicions were aroused, and our curiosity was excited in this matter. Five ministers of the Crown were found sitting here at four o'clock in the morning fighting for what they term a private Bill, and' yet we are told that it has all been talked over by the government for two years, and although they are quite familiar with all the details, they refuse to bring them down for our information. I want to know why it is that thev are giving over to a gigan'ic corporation the control of the River St.

Lawrence, to the detriment- of the people of this country? Why are these people favoured by a Minister of the Crown, and why has he promised to jam through this Bill? This Bill is necessary to make the other Bill effective and the two Bills taken together are necessary to make the whole conspiracy complete and take from the Dominion the control of its waterways. I do not blame the promoters. Grafters come around at all times and on all sides, but I blame the men who are here -as trustees of the company for neglecting the interests of the people. Before I proceed further I would ask the Minister of Finance-


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman is doing well, and I do not complain.


Samuel Hughes: I am ready; I am in good trim. But I really would insist that the minister should get home to bed.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not see why my hon. friend should be so unkind.


Samuel Hughes: It is the reverse. I have a warm feeling for the minister. In the vicinity of Ottawa we can develop 6,000,000 horse-power from water, and in the eastern part of Ontario, we can develop, under the plans that are being carried out by the Minister of Inland Revenue another 6,000,000, and possibly 10,000,000 more. Therefore, we can produce in this locality by water and peat alone nearly one-third of the power consumed on the continent of North America. With the data before us why in the name of all that is decent should these sworn ministers of the Crown be parties to engineering through this House any such Bill as this. It behooves us as trustees of the people to see that the water-powers of the St. Lawrence are not handed over one hour before it is necessary to hand them over, and then we must harness them with such safeguards in the interest of the people as will prevent any great monopoly from controlling them. President Roosevelt in the United States sought to save the people's water-powers. The Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Finance, and a couple of other ministers with the whole party behind them are working to take away the people's wrater-powers. The interests in the gigantic power trust are said to be greater than the- combined railway, Standard Oil, and Steel Corporation interests, of the United States of America. In the minister's meetings with these gentlemen promoting this project, has he obtained any idea whether or not they are in this gigantic water-power trust.


William Pugsley: I regret I am unable to give my hon. friend the information.


Samuel Hughes: The minister is aware that they are in a very good trust of their own.


William Pugsley: I am not aware of that.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: After listening to the splendid address just delivered by my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) I am sure that the government must feel that this measure is -worthy of much more consideration than it has received in the past. In following out the line of argument taken by my hon. friend I wish to read for the benefit of the Minister of Finance an article from the Daily ' Star ' of February 28. (The hon. member reads the article). In the face of that very strong article, which appears on the editorial page of the Montreal ' Star,' I cannot but feel that the Minister of Finance would be acting in accordance with the interests of the country if he . would allow this Bill to stand over until we have an opnortunity to investigate it thoroughly. I have another article here from the Montreal * Star ' of February 25, headed, ' Must keep control of waterways.' It gives a strong resolution passed by the Montreal executive of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association opposing this measure. Thus we have not only the Conservation Commission, speaking by its chairman


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The chairman is not against it. Read his leter.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: He practically condemned it, there is no question about that. We have not only the Conservation Commission, but also the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario, which is developing water-powers and furnishing electrical energy at the lowest possible cost, having contracts with the Niagara Power Company


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Does the hon. member expect that the Hydro-Electric Commission is going to transmit Niagara power to Eastern Ontario?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: They will not undertake such a proposition. " But here the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) proposes to give away one of the most valuable water-powers in the country for private interests and for nothing. And here we have a strong resolution of the Manufacturers' Association in Montreal in condemnation of the proposition. I am sure that if we had time to look up others, we could find many of them. And we may be sure that, when private capital controls these privileges, they will charge high rates and then they will pump enough water into the proposition to make those rates seem necessary.


Mr. TOBIN.: Their rates are subject to the Railway Commission.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does the hon. member suppose that the towns to be supplied

will be in the same position as if the HydroElectric Commission had the control of affairs?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Much better.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. member (Mr. Pardee) knows full well that he dare not go into_western Ontario and take that-position.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes, he dare.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: No man from On

tario dare go to the western part of the province and take the position that the Hydro-Electric Commission are not giving the people of Ontario power at the minimum cost.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: He dare not say it here.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Yes, he dare say it here or anywhere. I say that the Hydro-Electric Commission are not furnishing power at many points in Ontario at the prices they promise.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That is a very mild way of putting it. It is open to two meanings. ' Not furnish power at the prices they promised.' They may have furnished it at lower prices.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I mean higher.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the hon. member name a few places of which that is true?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I will not interrupt the discussion. Let the hon. member go on.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. member's argument against the Hydro-Electric Commission is a very weak one. Now, this resolution of the Manufacturers' Association was passed unanimously. It is another evidence of the feeling against this Bill. I sincerely hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will see the justice of our case and not keep us here any longer. It is a quarter to five in the morning.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) is keeping himself. I would not keep him for a moment.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But I should not be serving the interest of the people I represent, and of the province from which I come if I did not resist the attempt to force down our throats this most unjust measure. Now, I have another article here from the Montreal ' Star,' February 21st, under the heading, ' Long Sault Dam':


William Stevens Fielding: It may be well for me to say once in every two hours, so that there may be a record of it, that there is no foundation for the talk of hon. gentlemen opposite about this Bill being forced through to-night. Several hours ago I said that if hon. gentlemen would indicate the particular clauses they -would like to hold over we would let them stand over and not Mr. ARMSTRONG
take the Bill out of the committee stage. Therefore, any statement that we are trying t-o force this Bill through to-night is not according to the record.


Mr. SMYTH.: The Minister of Finance is undertaking to give us a lecture.


William Stevens Fielding: I thought I should mention that point just once every two hours.


William Ross Smyth: The responsibility for what has occurred to-night rests on the ministers. It is not often in a British parliament that you see the majority holding up the public business for the sake of a private Bill. It leads us to think that there must be something behind this. I notice a significant absence of t*.e Ontario members here to-night, and I know that not one of the Ontario members except our friend from Rainy River, who has something coming afterwards that he wants put through, would have the hardy hardihood to stand up here and say anything against the power policy of the Ontario government. We have the member for Carleton, N.B., (Mr. Carvell) taking an active part in favour of this measure, and we always look with a little suspicion on a measure that he advocates. We also view with suspicion the Minister of Finance taking an active part in a private Bill, or in fact any public Bill that he is mixed up with. I am not here to block the public business, but I am here to see the rights of the people of the province of Ontario safeguarded. The Hydro-Electric Commission has done noble work in Ontario, and the people of the province endorsed the government by an immense majority last election, and the Liberals in the Ontario house are taking a manly stand in favour of the policy of the government in this regard. For some reason which I do not understand, but which I may refer to later on, we have the ministers and the members from Quebec and Manitoba and New Brunswick, especially New brunswick, endeavouring to foist on the people of Ontario something they detest. We are to-night fighting for the interests of the people of Ontario, and gentlemen on the other side can make up their minds that we will stay here till Sunday morning if need be.


John Dowsley Reid: Everything to-night indicates that the government are behind this private Bill, and I would ask them to listen to what the Toronto * Globe ' of February the 9th says about it. If this Bill goes through, the government will have power to grant the privilege of damming the St. Lawrence without coming to this House at all. I have that information from a gentleman in this concern.


James Conmee: It has already been pointed out that the premier stated that the

scheme would first be brought before parliament and submitted to our consideration; and the Minister of Public Works on two other occasions this evening made the same statement, that the matter would not be dealt with until it was ratified by this House.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton put a question earlier in the session to the Prime Minister as to whether the government would consent to the damming of the St. Lawrence river at the Long Sault without the matter first coming to parliament, and the Prime Minister stated in the most equivocal language that it would not. The government has power to approve the plans or otherwise, and he stated distinctly that the government would take no action until the matter had first been approved by parliament.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Public Works also states that if this dam is granted the government will see that we get the same rates for power that they do on the American side.


William Pugsley: Provided it is granted by parliament. The government is not going to grant it, parliament will have to deal with it first.


John Dowsley Reid: Let me ask the minister : * What does the government charge per horse-nower along the canals or anywhere else?


William Pugsley: The charge varies according to the location and value of the power.


John Dowsley Reid: They already charged a nominal rate of $2 per horse-power, and a few years ago they raised the rate to $4 per power. They state that they will develop, I think, 800,000 horse-power, of which we will get 400,000. Now, if we take it at the lowest rate, the people of this country will receive $800,OCO per annum.


James Conmee: If they build this dam they will have to construct not only the dam but the conduits, the head gates, the pen stocks, and all that sort of thing. That is all done in the case of canals; therefore we cannot expect to get the same revenue out of these that we could from a lock.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. gentleman would take a trip along the St. Lawrence canal he would recognize that his statements are not borne out by the facts. Take Iroquois. The gentleman who has the power there is trying to sell it in these towns. He had to dig a place away from the canal, then he had to build his dams, and realize before he put in his power at all.


Robert Smith: Will the hon. gentleman say that that gentleman who is developing power on the Iroquois canal is not 172
using much of the canal built by the government for the purpose of getting water from the head of the rapids? Is he taking water out of the government canal into the river?	.


John Dowsley Reid: If these people build the dam across the St. Lawrence they will be emptying the water, and I cannot see what difference that makes at all. *


James Conmee: At Lachine and Cornwall, and places on the Welland and other places where power is being used, the power is already created, so far as hydraulic pressure is concerned, by the works of the government.


John Dowsley Reid: But I am satisfied that the development of power under this proposed power scheme Bill will not cost so much per horse-power as the development of power from the Cornwall canal. Yet the government charges $4 per horse power in that case. If the government were to make the same charge in this case, the revenue to the public would be $1,600,000 per annum. I suppose not more than five or ten per cent of the possible power can be used in Canada at the present time. We could not expect them to spend the money for development and not use the power developed. So, they would have to export the power.


William Pugsley: I would not allow them.


John Dowsley Reid: Would not allow them to export?


William Pugsley: No.


John Dowsley Reid: It has been allowed in other cases.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: There is a provision against it in this Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: But did not the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) propose that it should be allowed?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Almost as soon as we took the matter up in the committee, the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) said that the great objection was to the export of power, and it was agreed that the right to export power should be cut out.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: But when it was suggested that an audit should be made under which the power should not be sold to any company that had the right to export it, the hon. member (Mr. Pardee) refused that.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is right.


John Dowsley Reid: So, this power would go to build up industries in the United States.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: No, under the hon. gentleman's own scheme, which he has been talking about all night, there would be as much power sent to the other side of the line as under ours. This is to build up industries here.


John Dowsley Reid: Why, they intend to take it from Massena and for a hundred miles A the other side and there are large cities there calling for a great deal of power.


William Pugsley: We would not let them take it. We could insist on half of it being kept in Canada.


John Dowsley Reid: But another company may be formed with the right to export power, and that is the way of getting round it. And vested rights will be formed, and once they are formed the United States would not allow us to interfere with those vested rights on their side. The minister knows that 95 per cent of the water is on the American side.


James Conmee: That would not be the case after the dam was built. The object of the dam would be to equalize and control the flow. It will cost a little money, but it can be done.


John Dowsley Reid: Not in that locality, on account of the way the river runs and the way the islands are situated. And the Americans will claim more than half the power, and the government is not going to war about it.


John Dowsley Reid: But the Minister of Public Works told us that this scheme was coupled up with the other scheme.


Richard Blain: In answer to a question of mine the Minister of Public Works stated that the power would come from a dam
on the .St. Lawrence


William Pugsley: I said I had no knowledge whatever .about the matter, but I surmised that if the power were developed on the St. Lawrence they would use it. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent them getting power anywhere else.


Richard Blain: That was quite sufficient to give the members of the committee to understand that this transmission company would get their power generated by the other company. I ask the Minister of Finance what objection he has to this amendment to the Bill which was moved in the committee and voted down by his supporters:-
Nothing in this act contained shall be construed to authorize the company to enter on, take or use any land or water, the property of any province without having first obtained by order in council of the lieutenant governor of the consent of the province to such entry taking or user.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely that is a fair proposition.


William Stevens Fielding: There must have been some good reasons advanced in support of voting down that resolution. I take it for granted that my hon. friend thinks that this company will in some way or other be brought into conflict with the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission. I have no quarrel with the Ontario government on that, but I have always understood that what they desired was not a monopoly but competition. If that be so they cannot object to some other corporation entering the field. If this corporation cannot supply power cheaper than the Ontario HydroElectric Commission then they will get no customers. However, I have not studied the question sufficiently to deliver a judgment off-hand on the resolution read by my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: The minister has fairly stated that the policy of the Ontario government is to create competition so as to cheapen power. But when the Ontario government has expended a large amount of money in pursuance of that policy, this government is not justified in taking away their rights.


Mr. RANKIN.: What money did the Ontario government expend?


Richard Blain: The credit of'the province for some millions.


James Palmer Rankin: The Ontario government finances that, but the municipalities pay the whole burden.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: And it does not apply to anything east of Toronto.


Richard Blain: The province of Ontario have not been able to cover the whole province as yet, but it is their intention to supply power to the very municipalities that this Bill proposes to supply power to. What objection has the Minister of Public Works to the resolution I read?


William Pugsley: When we get down to business and come to a section in connection with which that resolution might be moved, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the committee will give it fair consideration. Let us get down to business and not act like children.


Mr. PRICE.: It seems to me it is the Minister of Public Works and his supporters who are acting like children. This is a very serious Bill, there is an important principle involved in it and we are perfectly justified in lighting it.


Mr. TURCOT.: What is the principle? [DOT]


William Price: It is the principle of provincial rights. Why did not the minister accept a fair sugegstion and postpone this Bill until the plans, were here, so that we

might consider the matter from a business point of view.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the plans have nothing to do with this Bill and that they are plans which are before the Waterways Commission in connection with another matter.


William Price: I know all about that; I know it is not only this Bill we are considering but the whole scheme connected with it. Personally I am opposed to obstruction and in favour of expediting business.


An hon. MEMBER.: Then expedite business.


William Price: We will not be bluffed by the other side of the House. We have as much good stuff on our side as you have on yours.


William Pugsley: The plans were not asked for until twelve o'clock last night and they could not be brought here. Ordinarily my hon. friend (Mr. Price) is a sensible business man.


William Price: Thank you.


William Pugsley: And the hon. gentleman is ashamed of the way the business has been conducted here to-night. Hon. gentlemen opposite must recognize that the majority must rule. If the preamble of this Bill and some non-contentious clauses are passed I will send to the chairman of the International Waterways Commission and have the plans sent here if possible. I am prepared to do anything to prevent the unseemly spectacle we have had here all night.


William Price: I know that the majority must rule, but at the same time the minority have rights which it is their duty to fight for. I am not a lawyer but a business man, and I want to see the business of the House expedited.


William Pugsley: Why not pass the preamble then.


William Price: I do not think the proposition is reasonable.


Edmund William Tobin: What do you see in the present Bill that you object to.


William Price: I do not know much about the Bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Price: I know enough to know that it affects the rights of the city of Montreal and that the rights of that city should be respected.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Bill does no touch the city of Montreal.


William Price: I believe it does.
172 h


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I beg your pardon it does include the city, of Montreal.


William Price: I honestly stated that I know very little about the Bill but notwithstanding that the hon. gentleman has been with the Bill throughout the committee stage I seem to know more about it than he does. I think the hon. gentleman should not be so ready to correct without reason a novice such as I am.


George Taylor: The Minister of Public Works said a moment ago that we are acting childishly. I would like to know from him who are the parties that are acting childishly. He says the majority must rule. Who are the majority in this case? It is not a government Bill, it is a private Bill, and one man has just as much right in this House as another on a private Bill. If it were a government Bill, I would yield immediately.


William Pugsley: What I meant was this, that instead of wasting the time by unnecessary talk at this late hour in the morning, let us take a vote and then we will know' where the majority is.


George Taylor: I have been in this House for 28 years, and this is the first time that I ever saw the time of the House wasted in this manner on a private Bill. Now, if that dam is erected, I want to ask how boats can go up and down the -river and through that canal.


Robert Smith: Under the pro-poed plan the Cornwall canal will not be interfered with in any way, and there will be no more to prevent boats going up and down than there is to-day.


George Taylor: Is the water not to be raised by the dam?


Robert Smith: The water is not to be raised at the head of the Cornwall canal. They are not going to raise the water so high as to be above the head of the canal.


George Taylor: The dam will be practically at the head of the canal.


Robert Smith: The dam is not to be at the head of the canal. It will not be sufficiently high to raise the water as high as the head of the Cornwall canal. The pronosed dam is some five miles below the head of the Cornwall canal; there is a large descent in the river at that distance, and it is not proposed to raise the water as high as the head of the Cornwall canal.


William Pugsley: Question.


George Taylor: It is now a quarter to seven o'clock. The Minister of Public Works said we were childish, because the majority must rule.


William Pugsley: I did not say the hon. gentlemen were chi'dish. I said we should

get to work instead of staying here and wasting the time of the committee and wasting the money of the public by useless discussion.


George Taylor: The government is responsible in fathering a private Bill in which they have no interest unless they are backing up a monopoly, and it is the duty of the opposition to prevent the country being looted, and if necessary to do that we will remain here until Satutrday night.


William Pugsley: Let us take a vote, and we will see where the majority is.


George Taylor: The vote is not going to be taken. When the minister says that he is not speaking for the government, when he says that the government make this Bill their Bill.


William Pugsley: I said nothing of the kind. I did not intend any such reference to be drawn from my remarks. There would be no truth whatever in such a remark. I said let us take a vote and then we will see where the majority is. The majority may be on one side or the other


Robert Smith: The Cornwall canal leaves the river at the east end of the town of Cornwall; it runs along the shore of the river, passing through a number of locks. On the Canadian side the distance from the head of the canal down to the dam is probably eight miles. There are islands intervening between the two. channels. On Sheik's island, on the Canadian side, there is a drop of about thirty feet and the proposed dam is considerably further down.


William Price: As I understand the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Robert Smith) the dam across the river will raise the water probably thirty feet, but it will have no effect upon the lock. Consequently the Cornwall canal will not be affected. Of course, the hon. gentleman, I understand, is thoroughly convinced that the dam will cross at this place.


Robert Smith: I speak of what the plans propose.


William Price: But I asked for information, and now the hon. member seems to be in doubt about it.


Robert Smith: I say that that is the proposition the company is making to the government.


William Price: Then the plans have been submitted to the Department of Public Works. I would like to ask the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) if he quite agrees with the hon. member for Stormont. He has seen the plans and knows about them.


William Pugsley: I did not think then, and do not think now, that the plans of the contemplated works in the St. Law-Mr. PUGSLEY.
rence had anything to do with this Bill, and I am not prepared to give the information he is asking for. But the plans were submitted to the government and are now before the International Waterways Commission. As I recollect them, they show the dam a considerable distance below the locks of the Cornwall canal, and I believe the engineer stated that these construction works would not affect the Cornwall canal. But all this will be considered when the matter comes up for determination.


William Price: Now, we have taken up a great deal of time, and I would draw the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to the situation. I think this is about the first time I have had the honour of addressing him. I feel a little diffident about it. At the same time, no one more thoroughly appreciates his bonhomie and good humor than I do. Now it seems to me we have been wasting a good deal of time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Price: But whose fault is it? It is now a little after seven o'clock. I can say to the minister that if he wishes to go on, we can go on in this way until Saturday evening. But there is no sense in this sort of thing. We should act like business men and like representatives of the Canadian people.


William Pugsley: Then, why not do so?


William Price: Quite right. That is what we want to do. We have strong objections to this Bill-not so much to the Bill, perhaps, as to what goes with it. It seems to me it would be better in the interest of both sides, if you put this off until the next day for private Bills, and, in the meantime, let the information be laid before the House. We are prepared to take a proper view of the subject, and if we are to be defeated, as we believe we are, why, we shall be defeated. But would it not be better to make some arrangement and facilitate business? Of course, if the minister does not want to do that, we are ready to fight.


Samuel Hughes: There has been some discussion of the position of the locks. Would the hon. member for Stormont tell us where these dams are to be placed?


Robert Smith: The first proposed dam on the American side is from the foot of Long Sault island to the American side, and there they propose to put in a lock. The next is from the foot of Long Sault island to Barnhardt's island, and the last dam goes from the foot of Barnhardt's to the bank of the Cornwall canal, about eight miles below the head of the canal and four miles out from the foot.


George Henry Cowan: I object to this secondary evidence concerning documents that are in existence and that could be produced in short order. In no court of justice would that kind of evidence be listened to for a moment. One member says the dam is at one place and another member says the dam is another place and we cannot tell where the dam is. The Minister of Public Works, says that the dam may be below Montreal or above Montreal but he says that no matter -where the dam is. it will not affect the Cornwall canal. If the plans were here we would know where the dam is and we would know whether it would affect the canal or not, and so we have spent the whole night here because the Minister of Public Works has forgotten where the dam is. The Minister of Public Works has told us that the majority must rule, yes, but the majority must rule according to justice, and if there is nothing to hide bring forth your plans and then, if everything is satisfactory, we will pass your government measure.


William Pugsley: It is unnecessary for me to state again that this is not a government measure and that the government is not behind it. Any member of the government or any supporter ot the government can vote on it just as he pleases.


George Henry Cowan: Let the minister not pretend that he has not made this a party measure; he knows it is a party measure and that every man on that side of the House is at his back. I tell the minister and the party behind him that the moment they attempt to divert the public resources of Canada from the use of the people into the coffers of a private corporation, the party on this side of the House will oppose that. Does the member for West Lambton pretend to say that this company will not get its power from the St. Lawrence Power Company.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I do not know, and the Bill does riot say anything about it.


George Henry Cowan: Then if the hon. member does not know, in all justice postpone the consideration of the Bill until he ascertains the fact that this company will get its power from the St. Lawrence Power Company which in conjunction with an American company intends to dam) the St. Lawrence. Let any member on the other side of the House stand ud and tell me that this company will not get its power from the St. Lawrence Power Company; let them stand up individually because I want to get them on record. I cannot understand how men become so tied up to private corporations as to become blind to the public interest.


Edmund William Tobin: Does the hon. membeij say we are tied up to private corporations.


George Henry Cowan: As far as I can judge the hon. member for Wolfe and Richmond and all of his ilk to-night are tied up body and soul to the passage of this Bill.


Edmund William Tobin: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member (Mr. Cowan) has made the statement that the member for Richmond and Wolfe and all his ilk are tied up to private corporations. I ask Mr. Chairman, that you compel him to withdraw that statement.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I did not understand the member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) to use exactly the words the hon. gentleman has indicated. I will let the hon. member state himself the exact words he used.


George Henry Cowan: I say that I understand that the hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe and gentlemen on his side of the House are tied up body and soul, using it figuratively, to the passage or this Biil.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I rise to a point of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member for Richmond and Wolfe rose to a point of order and quoted words which he understood to be used by the member for Vancouver. I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Tobin) quoted them exactly; I think the statement made by the member for Vancouver represents the words he used and while the language is very strong I know of no rule that he has actually violated.


George Henry Cowan: I have no desire to charge gentlemen on the other side with the intention to make this Bill law. If any gentleman on the other side is against this Bill I shall be glad to let him say so. I notice the peculiar reiteration with which the Minister of Public Works has said that it would be better to let us have a vote and get this thing through. You will notice the peculiar lack of principle in that suggestion; not a lack of cunning, not a lack of art in the railroading of a Bill through the House, but a peculiar lack of principle. Am I to understand that the minister is opposed to any further powers being given under the Act of 1901?


William Pugsley: I stated that no decision had been come to by the government in the matter.


George Henry Cowan: But the plan Has been laid before the government, these plans are for the minister's^ eye and not for the members of this committee, and yet the whole case is based upon these plans, which are hidden from us, which are concealed from us, which are withheld from us, which are pigeon-holed in the minister's department and which he dare not lay on the table.


William Pugsley: I stated already that they were before the International Waterways Comssimion.


George Henry Cowan: I am ready to take my seat if any man will be good enough to suggest the remotest semblance of a ghost of a reason for withholding the plans from this House. I get no reply. Am I to assume that their ingenuity is exhausted? Am I to assume that silence is their only recourse? Am I to assume that this Minister of Public Works and his party behind him are so absolutely run to earth that they have not one word to say why they are withholding these plans from this House? It has been suggested that they are asleep, Mr. Chairman. I have visual proof that they are not asleep, and I believe if they were asleep that nature, who has that happy faculty of revealing the truth at unexpected times, would reveal to this House the location of those plans and their nature. No, Mr. Chairman, it is not a sufficient answer to say that the minister and his followers are asleep, because I know that if that were the case the truth would out. Is the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) in favour of diverting this water-power belonging to the public into the possession of a private corporation of the United States?


David Bradley Neely: That is not the question before the House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: There is growing up a habit of hon. members addressing each other across the floor, while still keeping their seats. The hon. member who is addressing the House should be allowed to do so.


George Henry Cowan: Listening to the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) I am particularly anxious to get the measure of his ideas. Before I leave for breakfast I would like to ascertain where the hon. member thinks this company will get the power it is to transmit. The hon. gentleman does not Teply, and my curiosity is unsatisfied. Mr. Speaker, I desire to treat this thing seriously, but it is hard to do so an view of the absurdity of basing the -whole case upon plans seen with eyes of one colour by the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Robert Smith) and seen as through a glass darkly by the Minister of Public Works. And these gentlemen who have seen these plans come and tell us their forgettings -about them, and, in the end, we know nothing either about the plans or about the dam.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. member for Vancouver has told us that he intends to go home and get breakfast. I have known people to talk strangely because of something in their stomachs, but I have never heard one talk so strangely as the hon. gentleman because of nothing in his stomach. I am sorry that he has seen fit to Mr. COWAN.
mar this pleasant evening. For, -while this has been obstruction pure and simple, it has, on the whole, been carried on in a very pleasant manner. The speech of the hon. member for Victoria and Hali-burton (Mr. Hughes) was a jewel. He did not say anything unpleasant; in fact, he did not say anything at all. He said nothing but what others said for him, so he was not called upon to draw on his mental resources or even greatly on his physical resources. The hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) obstructed in a thoroughly gentlemanly manner. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. GeoTge Taylor) wants to get home, but did not say anything unpleasant. But as to the hon. member for Vancouver, I would remind him that this Bill is for the purpose of incorporating certain gentlemen as a company for the transmission of electrical energy.


George Henry Cowan: What electrical energy?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. member does not know what electrical energy is, it would be hardly worth while for me to explain.


George Henry Cowan: I know -about electrical energy and could give an instructive lecture upon it. But whence is it to come in this case?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From water-power.


George Henry Cowan: From what water-power?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From somewhere along the St. Lawrence river-I do not know where. Nor do I care. And I think the people along the St. Lawrence will not care very much either. If hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan), think they are making political capital out of this, they are welcome to all they can get out of it. There are other places in the Dominion than the province of Ontario, and we are not all bound, to the chariot wheels of the Hydro-Electric Commission, though the hon. member for Vancouver may be.


George Henry Cowan: Or to the public interest.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I feel bound by the public interest and consider the course I am taking in the public interest. The hon. member did me the honour to intimate that I had some object in trying to force this Bill through. I have no interest at all. I am not a member of the Private Bills Committee. I advocate the Bill because I believe it to be in the public interest. I have stated before that I did not care how many transmission companies or other public utilities came into my constituency- the more the better. The hon. member for Vancouver, though he has spent an hour and a half in opposing this Bill had no qualms of conscience in putting through this House Bill (No. 118) to give his friends

in British Columbia the very rights he wishes to deny to others.


James Conmee: And over the head of the province.


George Henry Cowan: What Bill-what is the title?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Bill 118. The hon. member knows what it is. He is not so innocent as he looks. Only two weeks ago he put this Bill through the House giving to his friends powers he now would deny to others. And he deliberately insinuates that the Minister of Public Works is hiding the facts, withholding the plans


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is only just to the member for Vaiieouver to say thkt he withdrew that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But he repeated his statement.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I must bow to your ruling, but the hon. member did not withdraw it until he was forced by the chair to do so. He knows that the St. Lawrence Power Company's Bill, passed in 1901, is not now under discussion. If that company be alive to-day and have carried out the terms of its charter, it has the right to build these transmission lines without reference to this Bill. If that be so, what becomes of the argument that this company is only a subsidiary company?


George Taylor: It does not give them power of expropriation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It does. Section 14 gives them that power.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It does not give them power to enter a municipality without that municipality's consent. '


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No. But what has that Bill to do with the Bill now under discussion?


George Taylor: It is the same people.	..


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Geo. Taylor) want to prevent the distribution of electrical energy in his county?


George Taylor: Certainly, if it means the destruction of the navigation of the St. Lawrence.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For three or four hours this Bill was opposed because it would interfere with the plans of the Hydro-Electric Commission. Now, we have an entirely new reason-the navigation of the St Lawrence. Does not the hon. member know that the plans must be approved by the Governor in Council? And has he not heard the Minister of Public Works say that when the plans are submitted to him
they were handed over to the Waterways Commission for investigation and that that body has not yet reported? Is it reasonable to hold up a Bill for an electric transmission company because it may theoretically have some effect upon matters of navigation which are in the hands of the Waterways Commission? If hon. members say: We do not want this Bill to go through and we have the physical power to sit hefe until Saturday night and commence agaia next Monday and sit until next Saturday night, of course, they are within their legal rights. But I think it would be much better if they take the ground that they are opposing this Bill because it interferes with the schemes of the Ontario government. It would be better for our hon. friends opposite to come out and frankly admit that they are opposing this Bill at the behest and by the orders of the province of Ontario. If they do that, we will know exactly what we have to face. But I pray my hon. friends not to take shelter behind this childish proposition that in some way or other they want the Minister of Public Works to bring down plans of a scheme which is on foot to dam the River St. Lawrence, and which has nothing whatever to do with the Bill under discussion, and which is entirely safe in the hands of the Waterways Commission and the government.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to submit to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Carvell) whether this discussion does not go deeper than the mere passage of this particular Bill. I think there is a question which goes deeper than any mere opposition, and deeper than the principle contained even in this measure. The question is, when a private member proposes a Bill and the leader of the opposition asks that the Bill may stand over until certain papers are produced, whether the Bill should not be laid over for further discussion. The leader of the opposition asks that further information be furnished, and surely as a mere matter of courtesy, if not of right, that request should be granted. The public have been led to believe that they would have access to these plans. We have Chairman Gibbons of the International Waterways Committee, stating at Toronto that the government and the commission have the plans, but they are withheld from the representatives of the Ontario government. Surely it is an extraordinary thing that where such vital interests are concerned, the representatives of the province of Ontario has not had an opportunity to see the plans upon which the committee are supposed to act. It is, I think, a grave discourtesy that one side if given information which is withheld from the other side. The representatives of the province of Ontario, of the great interests that are oppos-

ing this proposition, are not allowed to see the plans, while those in favour of the proposition are allowed to see them.


William Sora Middlebro: In glancing over the hon. members sitting on the government side of the House, I find there are 26, and only four of them come from the province of Ontario. One is the promoter of this Bill, the other is the redoutable member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), who always looks after the interests of the people of Ontario, one is asleep, and the other has not so far been heard from. So I think that if the interests of the province of Ontario are to be left in the hands of members from that province on the government side of the House, they are sadly neglected indeed. Now, reference has been made to the Bill passed the other day by the Railway Committee in reference to the Burrard channel. As I pointed out before, although the government did give that company the powers of expropriation, they were given to a company which produced documentary evidence showing that it was acting as trustee for five or six municipalities in the province of British Columbia, which municipalities contained one-half the population of the province. When we asked them if they were willing to carry on their undertaking without making any charges, they replied they were. Therefore that cannot be said to be a company incorporated for any other interest than the public interest of British Columbia.


William Pugsley: If they said that, why was not that provision put in the Bill?


William Sora Middlebro: Because the Minister of Railways himself said it was not a reasonable proposition, and it was at the suggestion of the Minister of Railways himself that a clause was inserted giving them power to charge a toll. But the proceeds of that toll came to the people of British Columbia, because it was a public undertaking and represented half the people of the province. But let us consider the consistency of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). He spent hours in this House arguing for the incorporation of the Nelson River Railway Company, basing his plea on the fact that* the Biil gave no power to expropriate water-powers. But now he argues that we should not oppose this transmission Bill although it gives powers of expropriation. In the Bill of 1901, we expressly provided that the company should not enter anv municipalit>
without the consent of that municipality. But the present Bill seeks to enlarge such powers and to give this transmission company entrance to a municipality regard less of the will of its people. In Bills that we have passed this session, we have specially inserted provisions denying the right of expropriation of water powers. In Mr. S. SHARPE.
the Nelson River Bill, in the London and Lake Erie Railway and Transportation Company and in others.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point ut order. There is no minister of the Crown in the House. The debate should end.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This is a private Bill, and the presence of a minister is not necessary.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Rivet).: I do not think the point is well taken.


William Sora Middlebro: I ask the hon. member for Carleton where is his consistency in view of the facts I have submitted?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. member wants an answer, I would say that;, so far as the Ontario and Michigan Power Company is concerned, it was fought about as viciously as this Bill has been, and the promoter, to get it through, was willing to accept almost anything. But since 1901, the Railway Commission has been created and under section 247 of the Railway Act, which creates that commission, it is provided that if such a company as the one provided for in the Bill under discussion cannot get the consent of a municipality to establish works within it, it must get tin consent of the Railway Board. I think that, for the purposes of uniformity, all our Bills should be passed subject to that provision.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. gentleman did not use that argument in support of the Nelson River Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think I opened my lips on that Bill.


William Sora Middlebro: Certainly, Last night, when he was


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right. I thought the hon. gentleman was referring to the Vancouver Bill. .


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. member last night said we should pass the Nelson River Bill because it had no expropriation powers; now he says we should pass this with expropriation powers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am talking of transmission lines going through a municipality.


William Sora Middlebro: But we are granting exporpriation powers against private property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A public utility Bill would be unworkable without it.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) does not agree with the Minister of Railways (Hon. Mr. Graham) who announced as the settled policy of the government that every Railway Bill should contain a clause denying the power to transmit electricity save by the consent of the parties interested.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then I certainly differ with him.


William Sora Middlebro: If we strike out the powers of expropriation, the municipality that desires to have the service of the Hydro-electric Commission can have it. But if you give this company powers of expropriation under the Railway Act you open the way for the middleman.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. member says the municipality should be free to choose the Hydro-Electric. But we on this side say that there should be the Hydro-Electric and as many others as want to come in. Let the competition be as free as possible. The Hydro-Electric Commission want a monopoly.


William Sora Middlebro: For the benefit of the people.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope this parliament will never grant a monopoly to the HydroElectric Commission or ' any other body. Does the hon. member (Mr. Middlebro) mean to say that if this Bill becomes law a_nd this company erect their transmission line to Brockville that will prevent, legally or otherwise, the Hydro-Electric Commission from entering Brockville?


William Sora Middlebro: It will mean that the poles will be erected, the wires strung, the houses wired and the connections made, and the Hydro-Electric Commission will be practically prevented from coming in.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Legally or from a business standpoint?


William Sora Middlebro: The other company would be installed, as the Bell Telephone Company is to-day so that nobody else can get in.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The logical conclusion of the hon. member's argument is that if the Hydro-Electric Commission get into a municipality they would be able to charge Lhe rates they want and make the people pay those rates even though they would be higher than if there was competition.


Andrew Broder: The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) seems to constitute himself an advisory board of one to tell the opposition how to argue their case.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. member (Mr. Middlebro) asked my opinion.


Andrew Broder: I am surprised at the hon. member, the watchdog of the public interest allowed such a notorious Bill as he describes that of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) to have been to pass the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not characterize it as notorious. I say it is a proper Bill.


Andrew Broder: Talking of monopoly, if you leave it to the people in the section
affected by the Bill now under discussion, whether they will have electrical energy-furnished by this company or by the . Hydro-Electric Commission, the people will soon decide irrespective of politics.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then why not have both?


Andrew Broder: Because the Hydro-Electric Commission propose to give power to the municipalities at cost, and the smaller number that take it from them, the higher the cost will be to those who do take it.


David Bradley Neely: If the Hydro-Electric Commission give the power at cost, surely there is no danger in incorporating this company, because, according to the hon. gentleman's argument, it will not be able to do any business.


Andrew Broder: The charges of the municipalities vary according to the cost of transmission, and my argument is that the fewer the municipalities that take the power, the higher the overhead charges will be, and consequently the higher cost of the power. But a stronger reason for my opposing this Bill is that it is simply a stepping-stone to the greater Bill which ii to come later to give a private company the control of the water-power on the St. Lawrence river. What will happen if we slow the current by the proposed dam?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You will have dead water.


Andrew Broder: Anchor ice will form and will cause the water to overflow the land.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Anchor ice only forms in running water. The dead water will freeze over.


Andrew Broder: Even if the water freezes over, the current from the river above will overflow it at the rate of several miles an hour. The hon. member for Stormont (Mr Smith) evaded the question of the height of the proposed dam. It was first proposed to be 54 feet. Now it is lessoned to 42 or 45 feet. The Cornwall canal is eleven miles long, and has a fall of 48 feet, with six locks. 'The hon. gentleman said that the proposed dam would be five miles from the head of the canal, so that it would be upwards of 40 feet high at six miles from the lower end of the canal. Involved in this question are the interests of the navigation of the St. Lawrence and the interests of the people. in_ that whole section of country. The American people are at present dependent upon our canals to get up the St. Lawrence river. The hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) is evidently willing that they should have a canal on the American side of the river. I am not willing to give them that privilege upon the St. Lawrence river, which is a great asset of this country. [DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The question of damming the St. Lawrence is not involved in

this Bill. Moreover, the Minister of Public Works states that the proposition oi this company is to build a dam that will not affect the intake of the Cornwall canal. The hon. member for Dundas is wrong in his figures. If the dam is to be built seven or eight miles below the mouth of the canal, that will create a tract of level water eight or nine miles long, forming a lake, which will freeze over in the winter time, and be free of anchor ice. The only issue is whether this committee will give the company a right to build transmission lines to various points of Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. MAGRATH.: I regard it as an outrage that the members of this House should be kept here all night for the sake of private interests. It is all very well to say that this is only a transmission company, but it must obtain its power from somewhere, and, in view of the public interests in Montreal and along the St. Lawrence river opposed to this project, I think this Bill should be held over until the question of damming the St. Lawrence is before us, so that the two questions, which are involved in each other, can be taken up together.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: We are not asking that this Bill should be destroyed. We are only asking that due consideration be given to the various questions that have arisen in connection with it. I think a feeling is growing in the minds of members on both sides of the House that we should begin more carefully to conserve our great natural resources such as are affected by this Bill. It has been admitted that the Bill is now before the Waterways Commission and all wo ask is that it be set aside until we have received the report of the Waterways Commission. This is not a government Bill, it is purely a private Bill in the interests of private parties, who are asking for large powers. And it is our duty to demand that we be furnished with all the information that is available before we consent to the passage of this measure. It has been said by the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) that what he stood for was the principle of open competition. I think he is aware that while there may be no actual legal opposition to two companies operating in a municipality for the production of power, yet it is well known that here are means of preventing an opposition company from coming into a municipality where another company is already installed. In our own western country when the telephone first came in, we were given a certain rate, afterwards another company came in and amalgamated with it, and immediately we were served with notices that the price was doubled for every telephone in the city. In regard to water-power we are paying many times the price that our neighbours are Mr. CARVELL.
paying in districts surrounding us, where a public company is serving the people. We realize that if these companies were established in the municipalities under this Bill, it would be impossible for the HydroElectric to come in. We have appointed a Conservation Commission, and it is proposed to vote them $60,000 for their work. We realize more than in former times the value of our great waterways with their water falls as sources of energy. Surely, the government should accede to the request of the opposition and allow a Bill such as this, which is said to have the effect of giving to private individuals one of the greatest water powers on our greatest river, to stand over for further information.


George Taylor: I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has retired, but three ministers have come in. I desire to secure information which the Minister of Public Works did not give us. I would like to know the height of the dam shown in the plan that has been referred to. And. if it is to be 42 feet high, as has been stated, how can the present canal be used for Canadian traffic. The Minister of Public Works stated that it would not interfere with the passage upwards of Canadian boats, leaving us to infer that it would throw all the downward traffic on the American side. I see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) here. He is the senior of the ministers who have recently entered the chamber, and I will ask him for information on this subject.


Mr. FISHER.: I am rather surprised that the hon. member (Mr. Geo. Taylor) has singled me out for information on the subject of a dam. Knowing my mild and peace-loving disposition as he does, I should think that he would know that I am no authority on the subject of dams. But 1 know something of the wording of this Bill, and I do not understand that there is any reference in it to a dam.


George Taylor: The hon. minister was not present, but the Minister of Public Works said that this Bill was in conjunction with that passed in 1901-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is hardly a correct interpretation.


George Taylor: That was the meaning.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


George Taylor: This is a power Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, a transmission Bill.


George Taylor: The Minister of Public Works admitted that the other company was to make the proposed works


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


George Taylor: He said that this Bill and the other would work conjointly.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.
5Jr. GEO. TAYLOR. That the same parties were concerned in both.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister did not say that.


George Taylor: He tried to get out of it, but he admitted it in his first statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


George Taylor: We will prove it by ' Hansard ' when it comes out this morning. I appeal to the Minister of Agriculture again. He is an old member of the House, as I am. I think he will agree with me that never before has he seen the House held up in debating a private Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That proves that my hon. friend's friends are the most unreasonable men that have been here for many years.


George Taylor: The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), before leaving at two o'clock this morning, asked that the committee should rise, that plans that had been referred to in connection with this matter might be brought down. That was a reasonable request. The Minister of Public Works said the majority must rule. The majority is the government, and they are defending and supporting this Bill, a graft Bill of the worst kind. But they say the majority must rule and we will force the opposition down.


James Conmee: We do not know which is the majority until we vote.


George Taylor: The hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) threw out the challenge that they would stay here until Saturday night at six .o'clock or pass the Bill. Hon. gentlemen on this side said they would stay with them and we purpose doing so. If the government are going to defend this Bill until Saturday night, it will be the first time I knew a government to back up a private Bill in this way. I think the government ought to accede to the reasonable request to allow the committee to rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again and in the meantime bring down the plans so we will see what we are doing, because there is no denying that it is all one company trying to dam the St. Lawrence and to use this charter to transmit power.


William Stevens Fielding: As a number of gentlemen have entered the House recently who have not had the great pleasure some of us have had of sitting all night until 9.30 o'clock, and for their benefit, I wish to again place on Hansard the exact position of this matter. I stated at an earlier stage
that every two hours I would put this point on record so there might be no misunderstanding. I wish it to be understood that there is no proposal on the part of anybody, still less on the part of the government, who have nothing to do with this Bill, to press this Bill through at this sitting of the House. I want that to go on Hansard in large letters. A proposal was made hours ago that this Bill might be treated like any other Bill, that the clauses that are unimportant might be passed and any contentious clauses might stand over, the Bill remaining in committee until a future day. We offered that hours ago, I offer it now.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The Finance Minister has. made that proposal time and again, but he must see the unreasonable part of it, that is that if we accept the Bill as it is at present, we will have to have the measure put through and it will be forced through by the government, no matter what the clauses are.. When we come to discuss it on the clauses, we will be confined to the clause before the committee. It cannot be too strongly impressed that this Bill is opposed by many important interests, such as boards of trade of our Canadian cities, and the Conservation Commission.


Richard Blain: I wish to read a resolution that was moved in the Private Bills Committee for the addition of a clause to this Bill, and was voted down:
Nothing in this Act contained shall he construed to authorize the company to enter on, take or use any land or water, the property of any province, without having first obtained by order of the lieutenant governor in council the consent of the province to such entry, taker or user.
I wish to ask my hon. friend the Minister c.f Agriculture what objection he would have to a clause of this kind being inserted in the Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is well aware that I am not a lawyer, and consequently would not like to commit myself on such a point without very careful legal advice. My own idea would be that the rights of the Dominion and the rights of the various provinces are pretty well defined in the British North America Act, and we could probably leave to those definitions to decide whether we were interfering with the rights of any province or not.


Richard Blain: I suppose the next in order will be my hon. friend the Minister of Labour.


Mr. KING.: As I understand, the discussion of the committee is at present engaged on one section of the Bill. After I have an opportunity of listening to the debate as a whole, I shall perhaps be better able to appreciate whether the proposed amendment has any significance or not.


Richard Blain: As these hon. gentlemen belong to this government, which is pressing the House to pass this Bill-


William Stevens Fielding: No, no.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Finance may suggest that the opposition all comes from this side of the House; but I may remind him that the strongest pronouncement against the Bill has come from the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), and that it is also opposed by the hon member or Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff). If it is not proposed to take away any rights from any province, what objection can there be to this clause going into the Bill? I appeal to the Minister of the Interior, who before he entered this government was a champion of the rights of the people, to say if he sees any special objection to such a clause being inserted in the Bill.


Frank Oliver: I would have to follow the discussion more closely than I have done in order to be able to give an answer to the question. Apparently this is a very involved matter. It has occupied the House during twelve or fourteen hours, and I certainly do not profess to have been able to follow the discussion during that time or to be able to make up my mind on the mere reading of the resolution.


James Conmee: I wish to point out that my hon. friend has brought forward this resolution on two or three occasions, and that the Minister of Public Works has pointed out that the question of dealing with the water power of the St. Lawrence river is not in the Bill before the House, but that if it were in issue, the declaration in the resolution proposes to settle a matter in dispute between the Dominion and the province by giving to the province wider powers than it has under the British North America Act. If this we,re a Bill involving the question of the construction of a dam, I would oppose that resolution on this ground. If the province controls the water-power, that control cannot be taken away by any declaration or legislation of this parliament. Why should we make a declaration which undertakes to give the province a more extended power than the constitution gives it?


Mr. NORTHRUP.: The hon. gentleman who has just spoken is evidently an ardent opponent of this Bill, or at least will be when he comes to understand what it really means. We have had within the last ten minutes the lamentable exhibition of a minister of the Crown coming in at ten o'clock in the morning and frankly admitting that he is using all his power to force through the House this Bill without know ing what it is; and we find the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) who should understand this Bill if any one does, distinctly stating that it does not and can


George Gerald King: not take away from the province any rights it now has.


James Conmee: Does the hon. gentleman say it would?


William Barton Northrup: I certainly say that it both can and does.


James Conmee: Does he say it deals with water powers at all?


William Barton Northrup: I mean to say it does give water powers.


James Conmee: Will my hon. friend read the clause?


William Barton Northrup: It has been read a dozen times, but I will explain it and perhaps then the hon. gentleman will see that it does give water powers and is intended to give them. Let us understand where we are. By jumping into the middle of the. discussion, my hon. friend fails to understand-


James Conmee: I have been here all night.


William Barton Northrup: I have read that seed sown on stony ground just as carefully as on other ground did not take any root. That may be the case with my hon. friend. We had an Act passed in 1901 which no member of this House, if he will divest himself of his political prejudice, will say reflects any great credit on its judgment. By the Act a copy was incorporated, and it is a matter of notoriety that this House gave such powers to the gentlemen who obtained that charter that they were able to sell it at a handsome fortune. However, all that is past and gone, and the only argument I draw from that is this, that having made an outrageous blunder in 1901, is all the more reason why we should be doubly careful now not to give a little more and supply an omission which the promoters, by an oversight, failed to notice in the Act of 1901. In 1901 they are asking a little privilege which will make the government of 1901 absolutely complete. In the statute of 1901, the directors are given prettv broad powers. Under the Sth section thev can manufacture and dispose of electricity and build a transmission line. It is perfectly clear that under that Act this company has the power to construct its transmission line exactly where it asks to construct it by the Bill before it.


James Conmee: My hon. friend is mistaken in that. He will find that it does not give the company the power of expropriation for their transmission lines.


William Barton Northrup: The hon. gentleman is perfectly right, and that is the reason the company come here to take the land belonging to the province of Ontario for the purposes of their enterprise. By this Bill, however, they ask that power. They

have the right to manufacture all the power they want in the Act of 1901, and they have the right to expropriate but not to expropriate provincial lands.


James Conmee: Where does my hon. friend find that?


William Barton Northrup: I find nothing in the Act of 1901 which gives this company power to expropriate provincial lands. There is all the difference in the world between giving power to expropriate the land of individuals and the land belonging to the Crown. Under the statute of 1901 there is no power given the St. Lawrence Power Company to expropriate any land belonging to the province of Ontario. But this Bill of 1910 expressly gives the company all the powers conferred by the Railway Act.


James Conmee: For the purposes of its works.


William Barton Northrup: Certainly.


James Conmee: That would give them power if necessary to expropriate provincial lands.


William Barton Northrup: No, there is merely the general power given but not the rest to expropriate land vested in the Crown and provincial lands are vested in the Crown just the same as Dominion lands. The provincial claim held in the Attorney General of British Columbia against the Canadian Pacific Railway that section 108 of the British North America Act specially empowers the Dominion parliament to legislate regarding any lands including the foreshores proved to govern part of a public harbour. It empowers the Dominion to give the right to expropriate provincial crown land and, therefore, it has the right to expropriate the provincial foreshore for the purpose of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Taking this decision as our basis, we find in the powers conferred by the Railway Act that corporations have the right to expropriate provincial lands. Beyond question that follows from the decision in this case. Nothing can be clearer than the words in this Bill making the Railway Act applicable to this company. So it is obvious that this company, while professing to ask simply the power to extend their lines along the shore, are really asking something different.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would ask the hon. gentleman whether that power, which he says is conferred under this Bill, of expropriating lands and waters belonging to a province, would apply to any waters or lands belonging to a province which they expropriate for the purpose of creating power. This Bill is one allowing the company to transmit power, and for that purpose the Railway Act and its expropriation
clauses apply to these people, but that would not make those clauses apply to powers granted another company under another Bill.


William Barton Northrup: This company is given rather broad powers under section 6.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Under this Bill the company has no power to generate electricity.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the difference between a scheme carried on under one act of incorporation and a scheme carried on under two charters, if they are both controlled by the same people?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Any powers given under this Bill for the purposes of transmission do not apply to rights and privileges for the purpose of creating power.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a distinction without a difference if both companies are controlled by the same people.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think so.


Robert Laird Borden: I do.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Public Works said that in his opinion this company we are now asked to incorporate, is simply a transmission company. When asked where they expected to get their power, he said from a dam that will be constructed across the St. Lawrence, suggesting the charter of the St. Lawrence Power Company. It would not be worth while to pass a Bill of this kind unless the company were to get their power from some other company because there is no power in this Bill for the generation of electricity.


Air. FOSTER.: That is what I have been pointing out.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister state where this company is going to get their power.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is for .them to find out.


Robert Laird Borden: Will he explain in whose name and on whose behalf plans for damming this river were brought to the Minister of Public Works? I thought we had a pretty plain statement from that minister but perhaps my hon. friend will give a little new light.
Mr. FOSTT;''R I cannot see how this matters in the slightest degree to this Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: The promoters of this scheme, having secured that particular Act, possessing it and controlling it, propose under that to dam the St. Lawrence and already have their plans filed and submitted to the Minister of Public Works, who has had them considered by the engineers of three departments-does mv hon. friend claim, if that he the case, and the claims of these men that they can dam the river under

that Act be well founded, that this Bill, which gives certain powers to the very men who control that charter, is not part of a great general scheme for damming the St. Lawrence? This is an ingenious scheme for creating power and for conveying the ownership of that power by a very easy method to this company. By employing this company for the purpose of transmission, it is simply doing the work by two companies instead of by one. Can my hon. friend not see that? .


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot see why, if an Act of this parliament gives them power to generate electricity, they should not then be given the power .to transmit that electrical energy where this Bill allows them to do it. The question of a dam and the creation of power are not in this Bill. That is not conferred on the company by this Bill; but if my hon. friend is correct in his interpretation of another Bill and they have the right he says they enjoy, then I do not see why they should not be allowed to transmit the power to various localities in Canada which might benefit bv using it.


Robert Laird Borden: I will give the hon. gentleman some reasons. There was not the slightest suspicion in the minds of any man in this House when the Act of 1901 was passed, that any such scheme was intended. I have carefully looked over the debates of 1901 and find that the Bill went- through the House without a word of comment. Some very clever words were introduced into some of the paragraphs in the Act of 1901, and the contention of those who control that charter is that it enables them to build a dam across the St. Lawrence joining a dam on the American side, and thus generate that power. Having that authority, they ask that this parliament shall give them certain other powers which will only be useful for the purpose of carrying out the bigger scheme to which I have alluded, and I say that that is too big a scheme to receive the approval of this House under the conditions which prevail at present. We do not know enough about it. We have not even seen the plans which have been in the possession of the Minister of Public Works for eight months, and which we find, to our astonishment, he had submitted to three engineers of the government who made a report without any man in this House knowing anything about it. We were astounded "last evening to discover how far this project has advanced and how far the government is committed to it without making known its intentions to parliament, Under the circumstances, when this Bill is proposed as part of that great scheme, vitally and materially affecting the future interests of Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
this country, affecting the great waterway of the St. Lawrence, the products of the west, and when there is lack of information and the absence of any definite policy of the government in regard to that scheme, it is perfectly clear it should not receive the approval of the committee.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman stated that- he was surprised to find how far the government were committed to this scheme. I think he will see that last night it was distinctly stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works that the government were not committed at all to it.


Robert Laird Borden: I said I was surprised to see how far the government were committed to it. I did not say that the government were absolutely committed.


William Stevens Fielding: If they are not committed, how can the hon. gentleman see how far they are committed?


Robert Laird Borden: I could not say. My hon. friend should know more about that than I do.


William Stevens Fielding: No, my knowledge is the same.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps so. Afterwards we discovered from the Minister of Public Works yesterday that he had gone so far as to send the engineers of three different departments to consider these plans, that they had been considered with certain objections which had been raised and that finally the engravers had come back with the plans which he said they had approved and which, as far as I can gather, had the approval of the government. They might not have had the formal approval of the government-I do not understand that they had-but if these three engineers had been sent to report upon the project and if they had reported favourably upon it with certain modifications it seems to me that they have made very great progress indeed towards winning the aporoval of the government. That impression is very greatly strengthened by the circumstance that the Minister of Public Works seemed to have committed himself to the project by attempting to drive this Bill through the com mittee before the committee should rise, although a respectful request was made to him at one o'clock this morning, wdien we had sat an hour and a half later than the House usually sits, and when the discussion had been absolutely relevant and instructive in every respect, that the committee should rise, the request was refused and we were told shortly afterwards by an hon member on the other side of the House that the government had determined to sit until Saturday night for the purpose of driving this Bill through. Thatr would seem to indicate that the government are pretty well committed to this Bill or they would not take a stand of that kind. I never knew a

statement of that kind to be made with regard to a private Bill or any other Bill under similar circumstances. There had not been one minute of debate in regard to this Bill that had not been relevant and instructive up to the time I made this request. A great deal of the debate had been raised by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) and by the hon member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), one of whom declared that this was evidently a .much larger scheme than the House was aware of at first, and the other of whom stated that this Bill had evidently been presented to the House under false pretenses. I say that the action of the Minister of Public Works under the circumstances indicates that whether the government's committed to this scheme or not the Minister of Public Works is very strongly committed to it; otherwise he would not have taken the action that he did.


William Stevens Fielding: I am obliged to take exception to the hon. gentleman's inaccuracies. If this matter is as important as the hon. gentleman thinks it is, he will agree with me that he should not be inaccurate in his statements.


Robert Laird Borden: I am very glad to be corrected.


William Stevens Fielding: I take exception to the statement that he made that some hon. gentleman on this side of the House stated that the government would sit here until Saturday evening. I say that no such statement was made.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: What was the statement then?


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend is making the statement he should not ask me to furnish him with the information.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the hon. gentleman say that the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) -did not state that? *


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member for Hants spoke for himself. The hon. member for Hants made no allusion to the government. No man undertook to speak in the name of the government in reference to this Bill. From the beginning to the end it was stated to be a private Bill in which the government had no concern and if my hon. friend was informed that a member on this side of the House said that the government would stay here until Saturday night and force this Bill through I can assure him that he was misinformed.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Hants is the chairman of the committee which had this Bill under consideration, is ha not?


William Stevens Fielding: I understand that he was acting chairman.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, he seemed to speak with some authority.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says that he ' seemed ' to speak with some authority. . A moment ago he said that the hon. member for Hants said that the government had determined to force this Bill through.


Robert Laird Borden: What did the hon. member for Hants say?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not called upon to answer for the hon. member for Hants; I am called upon to answer for the government when the government is misrepresented. My hon. friend was not so anxious to make a point against the hon. member for Hants as against the government. The essence of his statement was that he said that the government was going to force this Bill through.
Some lion. MEMBERS. So he did.


William Stevens Fielding: I can assure my hon. friend that in that respect he has ()een misinformed. I have another objection to make to a statement of my hon. friend in which statement my hon. friend has also been inaccurate. He said that he was surprised to find how far the government have been committed to this scheme of damming the St- Lawrence. The English language is plain enough for my hon. friend to know that if he was surprised to find how far the government -was committed, then the government must have been committed, and yet the statement made by the Minister of Public Works was that the government was in no way committed, although it had caused some inquiry to be made by engineers. There are many projects presented to the government and to parliament as to which engineers are asked to make reports; but would any one contend that because the government sent out an engineer to inquire into a matter the government are committed to it? It is not a reasonable argument at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say in reply to what the Minister of Finance has advanced that I do not think all the inaccuracies are on this side of the House. What the hon. member for Hants said he said in the presence of the Minister of Finance.


William Stevens Fielding: Did my hon. friend hear him?


Robert Laird Borden: I heard him.


William Stevens Fielding: I beg my hon. friend's pardon; I thought he was not present.


Robert Laird Borden: He said: We will stay here until Saturday night to put this Bill through. I am not quoting his exact words, but that is the substance of them, the Minister of Finance -was here at the time and he did not disclaim them. He

seemed, as far as I could judge, to assent t >
that declaration. The hon. member for Hants said that in his presence and said it after I had asked respectfully and courteously, at one o'clock, and after the hon. member for Westmorland had also asked that this committee should rise. Take the language of the hon. member for Hants, unrepudiated by the Minister of Finance, and take the action of the Minister of Finance in refusing to permit this committee to rise, put these two things together and let us see whether the inaccuracy is on my part or on the part of the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend says that I am inaccurate in stating that I did not know how far the government was committed to this project.


William Stevens Fielding: No, that was not the hon. gentleman's statement. His statement was that he was surprised to find how far the government were committed.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I am surprised to find how far the government are committed. Actions speak a great deal louder than words. When we find what has been going on without the knowledge of parliament, when we find that the Minister of Public Works informed us that these plans have been under consideration for eight months, when we find that they have been referred to engineers, that these engineers have reported favourably upon them, with some modifications, and when we find the Minister of Public Works evincing such a deep and abiding interest in having this Bill go through without the production of these plans upon the table of the House, I am surprised to find the government is committed to this project to that extent.


William Stevens Fielding: To what extent?


Robert Laird Borden: To the extent of carrying on these negotiations with these gentlemen, having these plans referred to the engineers, receiving a favourable report about them, and making no communication whatever to this House in regard to the form of that report. It only come out last evening by accident. What does it mean? We had the Minister of Public Works endeavouring to convince this House at first-he was obliged to abandon the position afterwards-that these plans had been submitted to the government without the authority of any statute. Did any one ever hear of such a position? A body of men, without any statute, without any charter, without any legal sanction, come to this government and say: Here are certain pians for damming the St. Lawrence; will you be good enough to send the engineers of your department and have these plans considered? That was the position wdiich the Minister of Public Works took at first, but afterwards, under the Mr. R. L BORDEN.
effect of certain discussion, raised not from this side of the House, but from the other side by the hon. member for Westmorland, the Minister of Public Works was obliged to admit, and did admit in answer to myself that these plans were put forward to this government under the authority conferred by a Bill passed by this House in 1901. This House was absolutely in ignorance of the fact that the persons controlling that charter believed themselves to possess the power to dam the River St. Lawrence. I had no knowledge that any such claim had been made until that admission was drawn from the Minister of Public Works last night by the hon. member for Westmorland. This has been going on behind the back of parliament and behind the back of the country. Certain gentlemen acquired the charter of the St. Lawrence Power Company. These gentlemen had raised the claim that under that they have authority from parliament to build a dam across the St. Lawrence as far as the boundary line. The same gentlemen have procured legislation from the State of New-York authorizing them to build a dam from the American side to the same boundary line. These gentlemen, having these charters in their possession, came to the government, probably more than a year ago, presented their plans, and these plans have been under consideration by the government, knowing of the claim of these men, for at least eight months. The Bill now before the House is, according to the admission of the Minister of Public Works, a Bill which is designed to carry out part of this great scheme. That is the position, and under the circumstances and having regard to the action which this government have taken in endeavouring to force this Bill through against all custom and precedent, I am surprised that they have been so far committed to this project as they seem to have been.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has made an outcry, and many other hon. gentlemen have done the same thing, as to the government having in their possession certain plans which they did not present to the House, and which they say they are hiding from the House, which they are suppressing. There are hundreds of plans presented to the government in relation to public matters, and which are to be found in the various departments, which are never presented to parliament, and unless some hon. gentleman had asked for a plan and it had been refused, there would be no ground whatever, for complaint.


Samuel Hughes: I asked for them.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman asked for them last evening when he knew he could not get them.


Samuel Hughes: I did not know that 1 could not get them. The Finance Minister and the Minister of Public Works stated here last night that these two Bills had a most important relation one to the other.


William Stevens Fielding: I have said that plans are submitted to the government and unless there was some special request for them they would not be brought down to the House and so this bugaboo is extremely ridiculous.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the government send three engineers to see whethei plans prepared by persons having no authority to build a line of railway should be approved?


William Stevens Fielding: Perhaps not, but if they did send an engineer and plans were produced and filed in the archives of the department they would never be brought to this House unless they were asked for.


Samuel Hughes: Were they not asked for at the Private Bills Committee?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not know. The hon. member says he never knew anything about them until last night.


Samuel Hughes: I am not on the Private Bills Committee, otherwise you bet they would have been asked for.


William Stevens Fielding: I find I was too charitable in supposing that the leader of the opposition was not here when the member for Hants spoke, he was here. He shifted his ground in his last speech, he first said that the member for Hants stated that the government would sit here. I took exception to that statement and when he was called to account he said that he heard the hon. member for Hants and that hon. member said: * We.'


An hon. MEMBER.: Who is ' we.'


William Barton Northrup: Who controls this House?


William Stevens Fielding: Nobody controls this House, this is the free and independent parliament of this country and it is not controlled I say in the name of the Liberals of this country there is no authority to control the parliament of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: To whom did the member for Hants refer when he used the word 'we '?


James Conmee: The friends of the Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I suppose the member for Hants spoke foT himself, perhaps he is in the editorial chair sometimes.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: If the government are not committed to this proposition is that not all the more reason to call a halt.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend does not know, we called a halt long ago when he was sleeping.


William Findlay Maclean: If they are not committed to the project and it is known that this is part of a much wider project, why commit the House to this minor proposition when there is still a major proposition to be dealt with? The government will surely take time to discuss this with the International Waterways Commission, the Conservation Commission and other bodies of that kind. The Minister of Finance is engaged in a great issue in regard to the tariff. It is said that the United States government may have to put in force their maximum tariff against this country on account of some action of this government, and at this very time we propose to pass legislation which means that the greatest power we have left on the St. Lawrence may be so developed that the bulk of the power will be transmitted to the United States for the development of their resources. We ought to keep in our hands the absolute control of that power which may be an important factor in this tariff discussion with the United States. This power is to be used, as far as I can judge, to electrify the New York Central Railway, one of the greatest rivals of our Canadian system. That power ought to be reserved to electrify the Canadian roads. The Bill could well stand over for another year. An international claim may be based on what is done now and so we should move slowly. The province of Ontario and the people of Toronto are trying to work out a great political principle known as public ownership. For some reason this principle is being assailed by many interests, and a determined effort is being made here to prevent the progress of that movement in relation to electrical energy. There is no urgency except the urgency of private as against national interest. Is the national interest to be jeopardized in order that private interests may be advanced? Where is the national urgency? The matter should at least rest for a time to allow the fullest discussion and amplification of the facts.


James Conmee: The leader of the opposition and some other members may not have heard the offer from the Minister of Finance early in the evening, that in order to prevent a deadlock he would be willing that the committee should pass the noncontentious clauses of this Bill?


An hon. MEMBER.: There are none.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, no.


James Conmee: That is what I understood him to say. The course of hon. members opposite is a pure question of obstruction on their part, and in all fairness and having regard to the rules of this House and to the general conduct of public affairs in any legislative assembly, a minority ought

not to undertake to dictate or to control the House either in regard to the legislation of the mode of procedure with any particular legislation. I cannot see any difference between, a private Bill and any other kind of Bill. It is just a question of the majority ruling. This Bill has nothing to do with the navigation of the St. Lawrence river. It does not disturb the lock, which is on the Canadian side, and not on the American side. The reason for the proposal of a lock on the American side is that there is a channel there which steamers coming down the river run without going through the lock.


John Dowsley Reid: Large steamers cannot go through the south channel.


James Conmee: But certain steamers do use it. It is not this government that is insisting on a lock on the American side, but the United States congress. In that there is no menace to Canadian interests, but an improvement. The Minister of Public Works has stated time and again during the debate that the government were not committed to any improvements of the river, and that no plan would be approved of by them until it was first submitted to and approved by parliament. The hon. member says this Bill is linked with another Bill. I do not know that it is so.


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Public Works said so.


James Conmee: The Minister of Public Works was asked where they were going to get their power, and he said he expected they would get it from the St. Lawrence Power Company.


Richard Blain: Where does my hon. friend expect they will get it?


James Conmee: I do not know, and I do know that my hon. friend knows; but 1 do know that they could get more than 100,000 horse-power without dealing with the St. Lawrence Power Company at all. I know that there is power at the Lachine rapids, at Cornwall and at other points on the St. Lawrence where they could get power. Hon. gentlemen have referred to the Bill passed in 1901 giving a charter to a company to build a dam and generate and utilize electrical power. It is doubtful if they have exercised that power sufficiently to hold their charter. But assuming that they have that power, hon. gentlemen do not take it away by holding up this Bill. Moreover, at that time we did not make the rights of the company subordinate to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. Under this Bill, we protect the public interests by putting machinery in force that will insure to the people cheap power and reasonable service. I do not care whether it is Canadian capital, or American capital, or English capital that develops this dr any other water-Mr. CONMEE
power so long as the people of Canada have that power under their control. This company cannot, under the law, export any power unless the government allows them to do so, and I have sufficient confidence in this government to believe that it will not alow them to do that. I may have objections to some of the clauses of this Bill, but the time has not come to discuss them. Hon. gentlemen who are opposing the Bill are determined that, as they are in the minority, they will not allow a vote to take place. I do not think any good purpose can be served by- that attitude. I submit that the hon. minister has made a reasonable proposition which hon. gentlemen should accept.


William Findlay Maclean: Mr. Chairman, I wish to call your attention to the fact that the Railway Committee, of which you are the chairman, is called to meet at eleven o'clock this morning, that it is now that hour, and that there are engagements to meet to-day by that committee, and parties are here attending on those engagements who would like to go on; and I submit to the leader of the House, in order that the work of the House may not be disarranged, especially in view of the statement that the government is not committed to this Bill, that the committee should rise and report progress, and that those who are members of the Railway Committee should have an opportunity to go and attend to its business.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite appreciate the desire of my hon. friend to put an end to this protracted sitting and to go to the business of the Railway Committee; but after all we must meet the situation as we find it. He is not aware of the proposals made on this matter when he supposes that the government is attempting to force this Bill through the committee. That is due to a misapprehension of the facts. At an early stage of the discussion I asked that this Bill be treated as any other private Bill. Most of the clauses are unimportant and non-contentious, and I proposed that we pass them clause by clause, and that whenever a clause was reached that any hon. member wished to have stand over, I would raise rny voice to have it stand over, and the Bill would remain in committee to give hon. members a reasonable time to prepare their amendments or do anything else that was necessary. That is a fair and reasonable proposition, and is entirely at variance with the suggestion that the government aTe trying to force this Bill through.


Samuel Hughes: Let the Minister of Finance recall the situation last night. Until the Minister of Public Works made the formal statement that he did regarding the connection between the company controlling this Bill and the St. Lawrence Water Power Company, the feeling on this side was to

accede to the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance. But how were we met up to that time? Five ministers of the Crown sat in a row, and, I say it advisedly, never during the twenty sessions that I have been in this House have I seen them fight more ardently for any government measure than they fought for this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the only other minister who spoke on the matter besides myself was the Minister of Public Works. If there were five ministers of the Crown sitting here, they were only doing their duty.


Samuel Hughes: If more of them sat here while the government measures were being discussed, we would be less surprised; but when a government measure is before the House, there are usually only two or three ministers present. But on this private measure, the mandate was sent out by the leader of the House to the chief whip from the province of Ontario, the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), who is in charge of this Bill, that not one concession was to be made, and the Minister of Finance told me that we had to let the Bill pass last night. That was early in the evening. We have discovered' by our fighting that the company promoting this Bill is intimately asociated with the St. Lawrence Power Company, and I give the minister notice that we are going to get to the bottom of this thing before this Bill goes through.


William Stevens Fielding: I hope you will, and I will help you.


William Barton Northrup: It might be well to find just how far we are in accord. We have a Bill before the House to confer certain rights on a company in connection with transmitting power throughout a district on the St. Lawrence river not very far from here, and for some reason no member from that district, and knowing the feelings of the people there, would father such a Bill, and its promoters had to go to the western limits of the province to find any one to father it, and selected the chief government whip for that purpose. That is a piece of evidence which certainly points in one direction, though it does not necessarily prove what is behind the Bill. Then the Bill comes before the House and we do not find the hon. gentleman who fathers the Bill or any of the hon. gentlemen from the part of the country more particularly concerned taking any active part in supporting it.


James Conmee: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I have been strongly supporting it all through the debate.


William Barton Northrup: I apologize to the hon. member for Rainy River. I admit that I was wrong. I admit that he is the father of all waterworks legislation save this and he is the step-father of this. We find that this Bill was introduced by the chief gov-173*
ernment whip and that it is supported by the members of the cabinet, and when an hon. gentleman, sitting beside the minister' who is now leading the House (Mr. Fielding), says that they will sit until Saturday night if necessary to force the Bill through, that is certainly further evidence -to excite suspicion. The hon. gentleman-who leads the House found fault with the' leader of the opposition because he did not exactly quote the words used by the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black). But the hon. gentleman himself did not quote his words.


William Stevens Fielding: Why should I?


William Barton Northrup: I think he should have done so or not have contradicted the leader of the opposition. As a man of honour, he could not contradict him.


William Stevens Fielding: I have no right to answer for the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black). I understand that the hon. gentleman, feeling displeased at the conduct of hon. gentlemen opposite, expressed his own views. He did not profess to speak for the government, he had not the right to do so, and he would be the last man to attempt to do so.


William Barton Northrup: In order to be perfectly fair to the Minister of Finance and afford him the opportunity to make the explanation, I am sure he is anxious to make, I ask him now whether it is the intention of the government to force the Bill through?


William Stevens Fielding: The government have no intention in the matter. This is a private Bill, and I have expressed the view that this Bill shall not be forced through and that hon. gentlemen opposite, if they will only take a reasonable course, will have ample opportunity to consider what they deem the contentious clauses. If they will only consent to our making some progress, the Bill may remain in committee, and they will be riven ample time to consider it. Can anything be fairer?


William Barton Northrup: The proposition would be perfectly reasonable and proper if it be admitted that this is a government measure, because what the hon. minister suggests is the practice whfch is followed in. connection with government measures. In 1903 I had the honour of affecting a settlement along similar lines with the Minister of Justice in connection with a government measure. The principle admitted" as settled is that when this House meets: to transact government business, some government business must be transacted or that is an admission that, the government has lost control of the House. Therefore, in connection with the Grand Trunk Paci-' fic Bill, hon. members on this side, al-

though bitterly opposed to it, consented to some objectionable clauses, assuming that the Bill must eventually pass because it was a government measure. But h.ere the case is different. If the hon. minister says that no pressure will be brought on members of the House


William Stevens Fielding: I have certainly said a dozen times at least that as this is not a government Bill, I would not presume to recommend it to any member of the House. How any member of the House may vote, I do not know or care. All I desire is to make some progress with business.


William Barton Northrup: Inasmuch then as it is not a government measure, and hon. members are not bound by political allegiance to support it, there may be some chance that, by discussing it, we may possibly succeed in protecting the interests of the country against the promotors of this Bill. Whatever the facts may be, it is unquestionable that the province of Ontario is bitterly opposing this Bill as encroaching on its rights. Whether the province be right or wrong is another question. In my opinion, it is right. But here we have these cabinet ministers, who formerly used to boast that they were the special defenders of provincial rights, using their influence to put through a private Bill which the Ontario government says is an interference with its rights. Here we have the singular spectacle of a government intervening in the case of a private Bill to force it through, which the Ontario government says is an interference with its rights.


Mr. DEVLIN.: I have not made up my mind on this Bill entirely, but would like to consider it clause by clause. The only point affecting provincial rignts is clause one, which gives some gentlemen the right to form themselves into a company.


William Melville Martin: I am opposed to this Bill, and ony a few minutes ago I told the hon. the Finance Minister that I would vote against it. He said to me: Do as you like, because it is not a government measure. I am against it, because the Board of Trade and the municipality of Montreal oppose it, but I want to be understood that in any vote any hon. member may give on this side, he is not influenced by the government. and no one on this side is voting in a certain way because of ministerial dictation.


William Barton Northrup: We are getting more and more light as the debate progresses, and probably by Friday evening or Saturday morning the House may unanimously agree to throw the measure out. In the first place, we have the Bill introduced in this House by the chief government whip, who lives 100 miles away from the locus in quo, and in the second place, the Bill is Mr. NORTHRUP.
being pushed through the house by the government.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


William Barton Northrup: It is by the efforts of the hon. gentleman who is leading the government that the Bill is thrust upon the House. Then we have this other fact. If we look into the Act of 1901, we find that that Act would apparently require the construction of works on this side of the St. Lawrence, and it seems to me impossible for the St. Lawrence Power Company, under their Act, to carry on their business without constructing works on this side of the St. Lawrence. But the company now being incorporated is asking the power to make contracts for the purchase of electricity from any other company. So that this company could lease their electricity from the American side. In every way therefore the in terests of Canada would be overlooked and the interests of the state of New York protected. We all know the wonderful strength of vested rights. If these enormous power plants were established on the American side and the electricity distributed along the Canadian shore to various industries, then the time might come when the supply of electricity from the United States might be shut off unless our Canadian industries w'ould give way to some threat from the other side. As was held by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) this is a most inopportune time for Canada to do anything which would in any way jeopardize its supply of electric power. We have recklessly given away an immense amount of national wealth in timber, coal and minerals, and here it is proposed that we should part with the last and greatest of all our assets, the water-power of the St. Lawrence, which is equal to almost all the water-powers on this continent taken together; and we are doing this in absolute ignorance because there is not a member in this House competent to discuss and estimate the consequence of such an act.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I want to try and give an intelligent vote on this Bill. I have listened for some hours to the discussion, and as I understand the rules of the House, we are simply called upon to consider clause 1 of the Bill. Clause I provides that certain gentlemen of Ontario, with the exception of one who is a resident of the town of Messina, N.Y., shall be incorporated into a Company. The question of provincial rights I understand may be discussed under clause 6. When we come to the other clauses, if we find that the rights of any province are jeopardized, it would then be proper to reject any proposal which will have this effect. But by rule 53, I take it that this Bill must be considered clause by clause. I think it is a very fair proposal on the part of the government to ask hon. members to consider clause 1, against which there can be absolutely no objection and

then, after the clause is passed, it will be in order to consider whether we should go on with another clause.


Mr. LANCASTER.: I do not understand what my hon. friend means by saying there can be no objection to clause 1. Why should we incorporate a number of men, a lot of them unknown, to transmit power? Where are they going to transmit it to?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: We will come to that in considering the other clauses.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman says we must stick to clause 1. I would point out that he is prepared to vote for something without knowing what it may amount to. Where is this power to be transmitted to?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That will come up for consideration in a subsequent clause.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Not necessarily. This clause undertakes to say what the name of this company shall be. It is the St.. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited. The St. Lawrence river is a boundary stream, and if you are going to transmit power from the St, Lawrence you are just as liable to transmit it southerly as northerly, and I do not think this clause should pass without more limitation.	.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am not now discussing the merits of the Bill. I may wish to vote against clause 6, but that is no reason why I should vote against clause 1.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think we should pass clause 1. I do not agree with the point raised by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, that there is no harm in passing clause 1 even if I did admit that there was nothing but the name of the company in it. When we are incorporating this compaaiy as the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited. I want to know what sort of transmission they are going on with.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: If the hon. gentleman could point out anything against the honour or ability of the gentlemen seeking this incorporation, I could understand that there must be an objection to it, But, if they are honourable gentlemen, the usual practice of parliament is to allow them to be incorporated and then decide afterwards what shall be the powers to be given to them.
Mr. LANCASTER, The hon. gentleman might be quite willing to give them all the powers that they ask, but I am not willing and I do not say that this is any slur upon their honour or ability. The government is not prepared to tell us what these gentlemen are going to do. The government apnarently knew months ago but they have not seen fit to place these plans before parliament, and parliament does not know.
The company are in this position, that they cannot legally get this legislation by any secret arrangement with the government, although they must have made one. They ask parliament to endorse it, but they will not show the plans to the endorser. Yet my hon. friend thinks we should go on and consent to clause 1 of the Bill If my hon. friend knows that there is no harm in clause 1 will he give us the information that he possesses and undertake to get these plans that we have asked for so that parliament may vote intelligently upon this question.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: That is just what I want to do. I want to give an intelligent vote upon the Bill after due consideration of it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: By whom?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: By the House.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Well, let us have the plans.


William Stevens Fielding: We have no plans affecting this clause.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: By rule 53 I find that ' in proceedings of the committee of the whole House upon bills, the preamble is first postponed and then every clause considered by the committee in its proper order, the preamble and title to be last considered.' We are now at clause 1 and there is absolutely no question of plans in clause 1. When we come to subsequent clauses it may be open to any hon. gentleman to ask for the production of plans in order that we may see just exactly what power they seek, but it is certainly not under clause 1.


Richard Blain: Is it not unusual that plans are withheld until we reach a clause in the Bill which requires a discussion of the plans? Would it not be fair to submit the plans when the subject was introduced for discussion in the committee?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I perfectly agree that it will be proper for the promoters of this Bill to produce the plans of the powers which they may be seeking to exercise when we come to the consideration of those particular clauses, but under clause 1 of the Bill I fail to see how any plans which might be produced would enlighten us upon the character, the quality or the honour or ability of the few gentlemen of the province of Ontario who are seeking incorporation under the name of the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Clause 1 seeks to incorporate these gentlemen under the name of the St, Lawrence Power Transmission Company, Limited. Before we allow them to be incorporated under that name surely

we ought to know what sort of power they are going to transmit and where they are going to transmit it to. The hon. gentleman says that when we get to certain clauses these plans should be produced. Are we going to bring the promoters before the bar of the House when we get to these clauses and call upon them to produce these plans? I say that they should have been produced when the Bill was called, but the hon. gentlemen admits that when we get to certain operative clauses these plans should be produced.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What plans is the hon. gentleman referring to?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: To the plans that you were referring to that you stated the promoters should be called upon to produce?


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I was not referring to any clause, but I said that if there were any plans to be produced, I presumed they would be produced. I did not know what they referred to.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We should have had these plans put on the table of the House before the Bill was called at all, why should we be prevented from examining them? These plans might be produced at a subsequent stage of this Bill, but the clause applicable to them would be called carried while hon. gentlemen were looking at the plans to see what they contain. There must be some reason in all this. I suspect this is a huge attempt being made by some persons-some of whom are mentioned and some of whom are not-to get possession of these water-powers on the St. Lawrence and avoid all our legislation about the exportation of electrical power, &c. These plans would settle the question. 'The people want to get that information, and they will have it.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: What information?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The information that the government have, but that parliament has not. The engineers have made these plans, the government have seen them and -still they withhold them from parliament. Why do they want to keep that information from the country? What is wrong about it? Some hon. gentlemen propose to stay here until Saturday night to put this Bill through. I am prepared to stay until Saturday night, if the Lord allows me to live that long, before I shall vote for any such legislation.


David Bradley Neely: If the hon. gentleman is sincere in his position-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did the hon. gentleman ever know me not to be sincere in any position I took?


David Bradley Neely: I am asking if he is sincere

	*


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You can bet your life on that.


David Bradley Neely: The rules of the House compel us to accept any hon. gentleman's statement as to his sincerity and I am not questioning the hon. gentleman's sincerity. If he wants to question it he has a perfect right to do so. The proposition that this Bill should be considered clause by clause seems to me to be very reasonable. The hon. rnember knows that passing a clause in this committee does not finally pass it. If the hon. member is sincere in his desire not to give these gentlemen any undue powers, why can he not wait until we arrive at the clauses in the Bill which are objectionable to him as giving undue powers? He talks about plans, i find no reference to any powers granted to the incorporators in this Bill that call for any plans. That has been said over and over again. Hon. members are simply trying to^ connect up this Bill with some other Bill, some other proposition, that has no relationship to the Bill before us.


George Taylor: The Prime Minister is now here and perhaps he would use the influence of that sweet smile of his to induce the hon. members behind him to permit the committee to rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again, as it is about twelve o'clock. The Prime Minister has not heard the argument on this Bill. It is a private Bill and the government should not take sides on it. When the Bill was introduced the opposition and others asked that it should stand over, Rut the Minister of Public Works could not agree that the minister -said last night that the majority must rule. This being a private Bill there is no majority unless the government force their majority to back it up. Hon. gentlemen on this side took a different view of it and we have been talking since five o'clock las! evening. The question which was asked of an hon. member a few minutes ago was not answered as the Minister of Public Works answered it last night. The discussion that then took place was as follows:


Richard Blain: Where does the minister think they would get their power?


William Pugsley: My own idea is that they will get their power from a company which may develop it along the St. Lawrence. I do not know that to be the case but I suspect it. This Bill simply incorporates a transmission company which would have to make an arrangement with another company for its power. The development of power upon the St. Lawrence must be provided for by another statute, but this Bill does not give the slightest authority to dam the St. Lawrence or construct any works in the St. Lawrence or anywhere else except such works as are essential for a transmission line. As head of the department which has been investigating this subject, the matter has come before
Mr. LANCASTER,

me and hon. gentlemen are doubtless aware that the plans of the company were submitted to the government for the development of water-powers on the St. Lawrence. It was directed that these plans should be referred to the chief engineer of the Department of Railways, the chief engineer of Public Works, and the chief engineer of Marine and .Fisheries.


Robert Laird Borden: Under what statute did the company profess to be acting when it submitted these plans?


William Pugsley: They did not state, but I understood it to be under the St. Lawrence Power Company charter granted by this parliament some years ago. I also understood from them that they expected to have to come back to parliament to get authority to dam the St. Lawrence.


George Taylor: They have it under the other statute.
Mr. PUGSLEY'. So my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson) thinks, but they did not lead us to understand that they had. The three engineers to whom the plans were referred reported adversely to the plans as originally proposed, and they suggested certain _ modifications which were accepted. The engineers, reported that the project was feasible, that the dam could be erected without interference with navigation, and the matter is now before the International Waterways Commission.
I was going to assure the committee that no plans would be approved of, no arrangement would be approved of, no agreement would be ratified by the government which does not amply protect Canadian interests. So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, I can assure the committee that the plans will not be approved of unless upon the express stipulation, which will be thoroughly safeguarded, that one-half of the water-power which will be developed will be reserved absolutely for the use of the people on the Canadian side of the line.


Samuel Hughes: Are these the dam plans?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: The thing is under consideration then?
Mr. PUGSLEY". That is the view my department has arrived at, and that will be made a sine qua non of any action the department will take.


John Dowsley 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 ago, 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 be in the interest of Canada.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Were these plans which were submitted by the St. Lawrence Power Company to your department for approval, plans for the construction of a work to connect with another work that would come out from the American shore?


William Pugsley: Yes, the plans were for damming the river across from the Canadian
side to the American side, and also for the building of a lock for the purpose of improving navigation, the idea being to give an additional lock to the one that is already there, and which was constructed, and is owned by the Canadian government.	.


George Taylor: Does the plan provide for a lock on the American side ?


William Pugsley: Yes, and that is strongly objected to by the engineers of the department. They urge that the lock should be built on the Canadian side.


Samuel Hughes: Why build a lock on the Canadian side unless the water is to be raised? The minister approves of it, the engineers say that lock has to be built, but they insist on it being on the Canadian side and the minister corroborates every word the opposition has contended for, that this company is a part and parcel of the company which got a charter in 1901. He says so here in plain language. I think the Prime Minister should allow the members of the committee to take recess and have dinner. The opposition have made a strong claim that they do not want to go on with the Bill until they see the plans in the minister's possession. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: There is already an amendment to the motion.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: As I understand it, clause 1 is before the committee. There was a motion that the committee rise and report progress but that was defeated and it cannot be repeated until some further business is done.


George Taylor: No vote was taken.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I declared a motion of that kind lost at an earlier stage and it cannot be repeated until some further step has been taken.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I think it is unfair for honourable gentlemen opposite to keep us here against our will and prevent the public business from going on.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Private business.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: We want to get at the public business. I am as keen as any other hon. member to maintain provincial rights, but I hardly see how that question comes in here. We are dealing with the St. Lawrence river, which is a navigable river, and is therefore under the exclusive jurisdiction of this parliament. But we are now considering simply clause 1 of this Bill, and the question before us is, shall a number of gentlemen of the (province of Ontario be allowed to form themselves into a company for some purpose to be here after considered? I ask the leader of the opposition whether he considers that we are wrong.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Let me enlighten the hon. gentleman with regard to clause 1, which he evidently does not understand. The St. Lawrence River Power Company, which was incorporated in 1901, and this company, are practically one and the same company, incorporated to do the same thing. [DOT]


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: They are two different companies, composed of altogether different gentlemen.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not say they are the same people; but the hon. gentleman proposes to incorporate two companies to do the same thing on the same river.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Will the hon. gentleman state whether, if we vote for clause 1, we must of necessity give this company power-that may conflict with those of another company?	.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It follows that we must give them some powers, and it follows from the name of the company that wre must give them powers for the transmission of power from the St. Law'rence river.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend from Wright (Mr. Devlin) asks for some expression from this side of the House as to wrhy this Bill should not pass. May I direct his attention to his neighbour sitting besides him, the hon. member for St. Mary's division, Montreal (Mr. Martin). That hon. gentleman will say that in his opinion, in the interests of the largest city in Canada, this Bill should not become law because it gives this company the right to enter on the streets of Montreal without the consent of the municipality.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That statement is not correct, as the Bill stands before the committee. This company will have no power to enter on the streets of Montreal or those of any municipality without the consent of that municipality. If permitted, I would like to make clear one or two points which are evidently not known to some hon. gentlemen opposite. I had not an opportunity to be here early in the discussion, as I arrived in Ottawa only at midnight. According to my interpretation of the Bill as it has been reported on by the Private Bills Committee, the rights of the city of Montreal are absolutely safeguarded.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. minister if the hon. member for St. Mary's division agrees with that?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think my hon. friend would dispute it for a moment, if he reads the Bill and also section 247 of the Railway Act.


Richard Blain: I may say that the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Mr. Martin, and the hon. member for St. James di-


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: vision^ (Mr. Gervais) appeared before the committee and contended that this Bill did invade the rigths of the city of Montreal.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was before the Bill was changed. I was in the committee at the sitting when this Bill was finally passed upon and reported to the House. It was only in that sitting that the provision I have referred to was inserted. Consequently any disputes in regard to that point must have been at previous sittings.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Which provision does the hon. minister mean?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The section providing that clause 247 of the Railway Act shall apply to the works and undertakings of the company. _ That is subsection 3 of section 6 of the Bill as reported. That section was inserted for the express purpose of protecting the rights of municipalities and was accepted by the promoters of the Bill. The section provides that when any company is empowered by special Acts of the parliament of Canada, to construct or operate lines for the conveyance of light, heat, power or electricity it may, with the consent of the municipal council, or other authorities having jurisdiction over any highway, &c., enter thereon. And subsection 8 says:
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to authorize the company to exercise the powers therein mentioned for the purpose of selling or distributing light, heat, power or electricity in cities, towns or villages without the company having first obtained consent therefore by a by-law of the municipality.
That being the case, the rights and privileges of Montreal and all the other municipalities are absolutely safeguarded. Another word or two with regard to tome of the provisions. When the Bill first came in, there was nothing to control the rates, but we added a clause which gives the control to the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Bill, as it left the Private Bills Committee, is entirely different from the original measure.
My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) has spoken about the opinion of the Commission for the Conservation of Natural Resources and he read a portion of a letter addressed by the Hon. Mr. Sifton, chairman of that commission, to the chairman of the Private Bills Committee. I propose to read that letter of which my hon. friend gave a part.


Richard Blain: The letter had been previously read by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe).


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I was not aware of that:
Referring to the letter of your clerk on tha subject of Bill (No. 115), I -beg to state that the Bill has been examined as carefully %s time and information permits.

The St. Lawrence Power Company is at present seeking authority to develop a power scheme hy damming the St. Lawrence river at Long Sault. This project is being opposed by the Commission of Conservation for reasons, some of which have already been made public.
I want to point out that the company referred to is the St. Lawrence Power Company and not the St. Lawrence Transmission Ccfmpany.
An examination of Bill (No. 1151 indicates clearly that the introduction of this Bill is a portion of the St. Lawrence Power Company's plans. It is to be noted that the president of the power company and one of its engineers are the first named among the proposed incorporators, and the powers asked for are of an unusual and very sweeping charaeter.
The passage of the Bill as it stands would give parliamentary sanction to an important portion of the St. Lawrence Power Company's proposals, and would complicate the situation unnecessarily.


William Findlay Maclean: Was this modified Bill submitted to Mr. Sifton for his opinion?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know, but I was going to point out that his suggestions, with hardly an exception, have been embodied in the Bill, and, consequently, there was no need of submitting it to him. The Bill as reported from the Private Bills Committee is exactly in the lines of the recommendation of the chairman of the Commission for the Conservation of our Natural Resourc.es. Mr. Sifton goes on to say:
On the other hand it is urged that some of the towns affected, particularly Prescott and Brockville, are without a supply of power, and that a transmission line is necessary in their interest. There does not appear to be any reason why authority for the construction of a transmission line, simply, should not be given, and if Bill (No. 115) were for such a purpose alone there could be no serious objection to it.
This letter has been quoted to prove that the chairman of the Conservation Committee is opposed to this Bill. But the words I have just read in this letter show that on the contrary Mr. Sifton does not see any reason why there should be any objection to the Bill if it were for the construction of a transmission line simply.
Your particular attention is drawn to sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 as being objectionable, on account of the large and unnecessary powers asked for.
These clauses are practically all struck out of the Bill and other clauses giying the safeguards asked for are inserted in their places:-
These clauses apparently contemplate monopolization of powers on a very large scale. It is to be noted also that there are no provisions in the Bill protecting the municipalities in regard to the use of streets or roads, nor
anything requiring the company to acquire or pay for a right of way. Difficulty has already arisen in regard to this latter point in other cases, and it requires to be specifically provided for.	.
Under these circumstances it is recommended-
First, That sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 be struck out and that, in lieu thereof, there be substituted proper provisions giving authority for the construction of a transmission line, and for power to buy, transmit and sell power within Canada.
The Bill provides for that.
Second, that a clause be added declaring that the Act shall come into force only 911 proclamation of the Governor General in Council and upon such conditions as tho Governor General in Council may by order provide, such conditions to be read as forming part of the Act.
At the "end of the Bill reported is clause 15, which provides that this Act shall come into force on a day to be named by proclamation of the Governor in Council. That is an acceptance of Mr. Sifton's recommendation, but does not go quite so far. He asked that such conditions as the Governor m Council may by order provide, shall be read as forming part of the Act. When that came before the committee, I rather took exception to that last part of the recommendation, and I did so on this ground: I believe it to he the duty of parliament to insert the conditions under which the Act shall have effect and force, and not the duty of the Governor in Council to provide those conditions and add them to the Act. If my hon. friend opposite see tit to entrust that duty to the hands of the present government, that would be a mark of their confidence, but that should not warrant this parliament in shirking its duty and putting that responsibility	on	the	shoulders	of	theGovernor in Council. If hon. gentlemen opposite, however, wish to impose it on the Governor in Council they may move to that effect. Under these circumstances, I did not support that proposition	of	the	chairman	of	the
Conservation Commission, but all the other propositions which he advised are embodied in this Bill, and the clauses to which lie objected are eliminated. Had that not been done, I would have protested against the Bill being reported and I would have opposed its adoption in the House. Now that the Bill is safeguarded in the way that I have indicated, first that they can only transmit power, that they cannot export any power to the United States, that they can take no action in case of any municipality without obtaining the permission of that municipality, that their expropriating powers are subject to the clause in the Railway Act and that the Bill shall only come into

force by proclamation of the Governor General, I cannot see why it should pot pass. Personally, I am not interested in the Bill any more than any other member of the House. As a member of the Private Bills Committee, it was my duty to examine the Bill to listen to and take part in the discussion and see to it that the Bill fulfilled the conditions necessary to proper legislation on the part of this parliament. As to whether this Bill overrides the jurisdiction of the local legislatures I do not presume to give an opinion, but the contention of.the hon. gentleman for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) does not seem to me to be an accurate one. He seemed to' imply that this Bill would extend the power to expropriate the property of a provincial government, obtained under section 247 of the Railway Act, to what is called the original company. I am not a lawyer and I do not profess to give a legal opinion, but it does not seem to be possible that the power which is given to one company under one Act of a certain character can be thereby given to another company under another Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The same people may acquire stock in both companies.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The same people may be in the two companies, but the powers given to one incorporation under the statute could only apply to the works exercised by that corporation and not to the works which they exercise under another statute.


Robert Laird Borden: I think I observed in the letter of the Chairman of the Conservation Commission an expression of opinion that this was merely part of the larger scheme.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, not a part of the larger scheme. He says that:
The introduction of this Bill is a portion of the St. Lawrence Power Company's plan.
That may be so. I am not aware of what their intention is.


Robert Laird Borden: We know that from the declaration of the Minister of Public Works.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Whether it is or is not, the powers given under this Bill have reference to works connected with the transmission of electricity, and they cannot apply to the powers given under the original incorporation for the erection of a dam, &c. I cannot understand how powers created by this Bill for a certain work defined in this Bill can be transferred to work which is to be done under another and different statute. My understanding is that only this has the Railway Act applied to it and consequently the power which under the Railway Act is given to companies incorporated by this parliament Mr. FISHER
to expropriate the property of provincial governments is not included in the charter of the original corporation. It is only by reason of the fact that the powers of expropriation under the Railway Act are given to this company that they get power to expropriate property of the provinces, and the reason that was given was that if they were not given that power, under the involved construction of provincial rights in regard to land under streams and on river beds, they might be prevented from crossing any river bed in Ontario, which would mean practically that they would be obstructed absolutely and forever in any work which -this parliament authorized them to carry on.


Richard Blain: Does not that take away some rights of the province of Ontario?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not going to give a legal opinion on that, but if there is a right on the part of Ontario to obstruct a company's works which are in the interest of the people of Canada, then I say that the _ property of the province ought to be subjected, as private property is, to expropriation to enable the works of the company to be carried on. If the works are not in the public interest this parliament ought not to give a charter at all, but if it does give a charter it should give facilities to the company to carry on the works which this parliament has authorized.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Would the minister advocate a measure which would override the rights of the municipality or the province?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If this parliament sees fit to incorporate a company for certain purposes, it ought to give that company the power to carry on its purposes.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The minister is saying today the very opposite of that which he said last session. Last session when he introduced the Bill to establish the Conservation Commission he explained that the interests of the provinces and municipalities as well as the interests of the Dominion would be safeguarded by this commission. We had presented the argument that this House had created certain committees on conservation, and that, therefore, there was no necessity of going to the expense of creating a Conservation Commission. Asked by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) what the Conservation Commission would do, he said on May 12, page 6369 of 'Hansard':
They will hold a meeting and discuss what recommendations they may he able to lay down for the treatment of the natural resources of Canada in the future on such lines as may rightly appeal to the administrative bodies, all through Canada, whether municipal, provincial or Dominion who have con trol over natural resources.

A committee of the House is purely federal in its character. It does not enlist the sympathy or co-operation of the provincial or municipal authorities.
When the question was raised that there was a committee of this House on natural resources the minister said:
A committee of the House is purely federal in its character. It does not enlist the sympathy or co-operation of the provincial or municipal authorities.
Now, the hon. gentleman says that he would vote in support of measures which would absolutely override and take away rights municipal and provincial, notwithstanding what these rights may be, and in favour of federal legislation. My hon. friend must see the inconsistency of that position. I have a word to say to the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Con-mee). He takes a rather extraordinary stand in reference to this Bill. He has said that we should override by this Bill the rights of the provinces. The hon. gentleman has not always spoken along that line. When he was a member of the provincial house in Ontario, supporting the provincial government, he took a different position, and in the first year that he was a member of this House he also took a different position.


James Conmee: No, there has been no inconsistency in my position.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Having regard to the principles which are involved as regards the rights of provinces and municipalities through which this proposed transmission line would pass, I feel that this Bill should be allowed to stand over. With regard to the principles of this Bill, the time has to come, and it might as well come now, when a policy must be laid down for dealing with these questions. It is the duty of the government to lay before this House such a policy as will prevent such a discussion as this being precipitated and will prevent private rights, municipal rights and provincial rights being so continually invaded as they are at the present time.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture what he makes of section II subsection 4.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I take that to mean that the company has the right to acquire in fee simple such lands as it may need for the construction of its transmission line. The words, fee simple, were put in so as to require the company to buy the lands and not simply obtain a lease of them.


Robert Laird Borden: Section 247 of the Railway Act, to which my hon. friend referred, and the general provisions of the Railway Act on which he relies, do not seem to cure the situation created by this subsection, which apparently gives the company
the right to enter on and expropriate any land without acquiring a title in fee simple. This might give the company the right to obtain an easement in any municipality without acquiring the right in fee simple. Subsection 6 of section 11 says:
In. the event of the company exercising the rights of expropriation hereby given for the purpose of acquiring land for its right of way, such land must be acquired in fee simple.
I do not know what the. effect of these two provisions read together is. I would think it extremely probable that under subsection 4 the provisions of section 247 of the Railway Act might not be of very much avail.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If that is the case, the clause, when we reach it, ought to be amended, because the Private Bills Committee fully understood that all questions of expropriation should be subject to the permission of the municipality, and I would be prepared to support any amendment which would make it clear that no such power would be left in the hands of the company.


Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE.: The difference between the two subsections is this: that in every case of expropriation the company would be obliged to acquire a title in fee simple; but they would not be required to do so in obtaining an easement or a privilege.


Robert Laird Borden: If that is the intention, it has been very badly expressed. The Railway Act gives a company power to expropriate land. This Bill proceeds to say that ' the word land, so far as it applies to this Act shall include any privilege or easement required by the company for constructing or operating the works authorized by this Act without the necessity of acquiring a title in fee simple.' Therefore it seems to me that this result would follow, that this company would have the right to acquire a right of way without the necessity of - acquiring a title in fee simple. If this clause gives it the Tight by expropriation to obtain an easement for the purpose of erecting one pole, it has an equal right to acquire an [DOT]easement by similar proceedings for the purpose of erecting all its poles.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would suggest to my hon. friend that that can be very easily remedied when we reach that clause in the Bill. Therefore I would suggest that we facilitate our reaching it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have listened with a good deal of interest to what the Minister of Agriculture said in regard to the innocent character of this Bill as it now stands, and his explanation of the letter of the hon. Chairman of the Conservation Commission. I do not read this Bill as of the innocent character that the Minister of Agriculture does, and I think he must give more consideration to it before he comes to that

conclusion. As I understand the letter, Mr. Sifton, the Chairman of the Conservation Commission, wanted the Bill to be limited to transmission, and I do not understand the minister to say that Mr. Sifton has seen the Bill in its amended form. If it be intended that this Bill is to accomplish nothing but transmission, that is not its effect even as amended. By clause 6 the company may purchase or lease electric power, and acquire such lands, easements and privileges as are necessary for the purpose of it3 undertakings. Now, it must be admitted that the Act of 1901, incorporating the St. Lawrence Power Company, though it may be a different Act, gives that company the right to sell those powers, and that Act contains no clause such as we insert in railway charters, preventing any amalgamation with any other company except with the approval of the Governor in Council or the Railway Commission. So that the two companies, being under the one control, could be so manipulated as to give them the joint power of generating and transmitting electricity. Clause (6) provides that the company may:-
(a) construct, maintain , operate, use and manage conduits, tunnels, transmission lines, structures, buildings, machinery, plant, appliances, instruments and devices, and erect and maintain poles and towers, and lay and maintain pipes, cables, wires or other conductors and connect them with similar lines in other provinces and with similar lines in the United States for the purpose of importation only.
It does not say for transmission only, and I cannot presume that would be the result


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That is the whole object.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why not limit this clause so as to provide for transmission only in Canada?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When we reach that clause we can put that in.


James Alexander Robb: Let my hon. friend read clause 12.	.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That clausa provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to empower the company'to export electricity or electric or other power to the United States. But there is nothing here that limits in any way their rights to transmission. Wa have this statute of 1901 which gives powers far beyond transmission to another company, almost identical in name and composed of the same parties, and we then are asked to pass this Bill in which care is taken not to limit the powers of the company to transmission. An attempt has been made to show that municipal rights will not be invaded and a clause was put in to that effect. Whether operative or not shall be found out later. The Bill declares [DOT] Mr. LANCASTER,
what the works and powers of the company are to be, but it does not limit them to a transmission company or to anything that could be so construed. On the contrary, we do S|ay that they can acquire, lease or obtain current, power or force, and may supply, sell, &c. They can buy or sell from any other company that can give them current. We are giving them this power and we are not putting in any such safeguard as that they should be subject to the Railway Board or to the Governor in Council. The chairman of the Conservation Commission who is not merely as an individual for whom we might have respect objected to this measure. He is not a gentleman who is simply appointed and who is desirous of protecting this country, but he is, under statute, made the policeman or guardian of these things, and it is his duty to watch and keep tab on such legislation. That gentleman has condemned this Bill as far as we know. I would like a letter from the chairman of the commission saying that, having seen the amended Bill, he is satisfied that it is all right. I understand the Bill does not remove his objection. If it were limited to transmission only, the chairman saw much objection to it, but he made the distinct statement that it should be limited to transmission only. This Bill is not limited to transmission. Does not the Minister of Agriculture think that if it is to be limited to transmission only, it would be well to put into this Bill a statement to that effect, either at the end of clause 6 or in some other part of the Bill, so that it would be quite clear?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: When we reach the clause in question I am ready to support any wording which will make clear the intention I have already described.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We are asked to pass clause 1 saying what the name of this company shall be, but we have not yet determined that the name is the proper one. I am not prepared to vote that this company shall be a transmission company if it is to be something else, and the Bill indicates that it is to be something else. It is to be a great deal more than a transmission company.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think that the corporation ought to be made to agree with the title of the Bill, which is that of a transmission company. It is a transmission company that I am prepared to incorporate and grant powers to.
Mr. LANCASTER, There is nothing that limits it to a transmission company.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think there is. If there is not I am ready to put it there.


Robert Laird Borden: Was I correct in understanding the Minister of Agriculture

to say that everything objected to by the chairman of the commission had been struck out?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: As far as I can see the Bill has been reframed in exact accordance with the recommendations of the chairman of the Conservation Commission except what lie proposed in regard to conditions being- put in the order in council.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that the chairman recommends that clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 should be struck out of the original Bill. Clause 10 has not been struck out as it appears here as clause 7.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I see that the clause is exactly the same but it seems to me that other clauses having been put in to prevent the power there provided for being exercised except under certain restrictions that clause is not objectionable.


Robert Laird Borden: He seemed to think that it was and he continues the objection to it as it stands at present. There are rather peculiar words in clause 7:
The company may construct or acquire by lease, purchase or otherwise, and operate in connection with the works, lines and business of the company and for the purposes thereof, lines of telegraph or telephone or other works and means of communication.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The word^ 'and for the purposes thereof' mean that these lines of telegraph and telephone are only to be used for the purposes of the company in the same way that a railway company is allowed to use telegraph and telephone lines for its own purposes.


Haughton Lennox: Is the minister quite sure of his statement when he says that all the recommendations of the chairman of the Conservation Commission have been embodied in this Bill? The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) produced a letter from the chairman of the Conservation Commission and I gathered from his statement that there were very material differences between the recommendations and the Bill as presented to the House. I notice that the Minister of Agriculture seems to have the impression that the Bill carries out all that the chairman recommended.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: With one exception.


Haughton Lennox: Is the minister sure that all the recommendations made by the chairman of the commission purported to be carried out-that the committee decided to adopt them all?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That was the intention of the Private Bills Committee.


Haughton Lennox: Would the minister be good enough to state again what the exception was?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It was that the chairman of the commission thought that in the proclamation of the Governor General bringing the Act into force there should be additional conditions imposed which I objected to on principle.


Haughton Lennox: I do not recall whether the chairman is apjxnnted by order in council or selected by the commission itself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He is specially appointed as chairman.


Haughton Lennox: The practice is growing up in the committees of referring matters to what is called the Conservation Commission; that is referring them practically to the chairman of the Conservation Commission. I recognize that the chairman is a man of very exceptional ability, but that alone does not constitute a Teason why we should leave-matters of important legislation to him. The question of ability is not the sole question. I have a very serious objection to that method. It works exceedingly well at all times. It may work well on this occasion, but the time will come when it will work in the reverse order, and I think that if we once adopt that method of referring matters nominally to the Conservation Commission, but to be actually decided by the chairman or even directly referring them to the chairman, we will come to a very dangerous condition of things before long. For a time the chairman may recommend things that seem to be in the line of conserving the public interest, and the opposition will say it is very willing on these occasions to adopt them, but we have no guarantee that on other occasions the chairman will not recommend the adoption of a Bill which is a very dangerous Bill, and the fact that we have referred it to him will get us into the practice of being careless in investigating matters ourselves, and it will not be very long before a serious blunder will result from this practice. I do not wish to attack either the Conservation Commission or the chairman of that commission, but I say that in principle it is wrong. We are delegating our duties to a commission which has no responsibility, because we cannot consider that Mr. Sifton as chairman of the commission is filling a responsible position in the Sense of being a member of this House, although he happens to be a member. By referring Bills to that commission or its chairman, we are delegating duties which we should perform ourselves, and we will yet bring censure upon ourselves for doing that. The most valuable work of the commission will be to deal with general cases, not on refer-

ence of a particular instance or particular Bill. They take a general survey of the country, its interests and resources, and form an opinion on these matters, when no one is interested in influencing them in a certain way, but I feel it is a dangerous principle to relegate our duties to the chairman of that commission or even to the Conservation Commission itself.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Was this Bill not referred to the Conservation Commission?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The original Bill was, but this Bill was not referred to them. The Conservation Commission went over the first Bill and cut out what they thought were objectionable clauses, and returned the Bill to the Private Bills Committee. They had no objection to the Bill going through in its amended form,


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Mines are ex-officio, by the Act, members of the Conservation Commission, to which this Bill was referred
I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether any meeting of the Conservation Commission was called for the purpose of considering the Bill that was referred to that commission? It must be clear that it has never sat and deliberated upon this Bill, and we have no recommendation from the commission as to the best method of dealing with this matter. This Bill was referred to a body composed of 35 members, and we have received, not the opinion of the commission, but the opinion of one member of it who is called the chairman, and whose duties, as defined by the Act, are purely administrative, to carry out the decisions of the commission. Therefore, unless we are to make a farce of the proceedings of that commission, we should refer to it this Bill and obtain the recommendations of the commission, and not merely those of the chairman. I would like to know the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture, himself ex-officio a member of that commission, and the minister who introduced the measure creating the Conservation Commission, as to the chairman of the commission, without calling the commission together, himself disposing of questions referred to that commission?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The only reason, so far as I know, that this question of the Conservation Commission has come up at all, is that hon. gentlemen who oppose this Bill, quoted the letter of the chairman of the commission, and used it for the purpose of obstructing the Bill.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman is wrong in saying that the letter was used for the purpose of obstructing the Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I apologize. I meant to say for the purpose of opposing the Bill,
Mr. LENNOX
the argument being advanced that this Bill was opposed by the Conservation Commission. That is why I referred to the matter. As to referring this question to the Conservation Commission, that suggestion is open to objection and also to commendation. There are reasons on both sides. But it is obvious that the commission, composed of thirty gentlemen scattered over Canada, cannot be got together to discuss every question that may be referred to them. If a question of that kind is referred to the commission, either the whole commission will have to be called together to deliberate and pronounce upon it, or the chairman may call together the executive committee for that purpose. I am not aware whether or not in this case he called together the executive committee.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: You are a member of it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I am not. One of its members is one of the hon. members for Toronto, another is the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), another is Dr. Robertson, another is the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, another is Senator Edwards, and there are two or three others. What the chairman wrote may be his own personal opinion as chairman, or it may be the opinion formed in consultation.	Hon. gentlemen opposite,
supposing that the letter of the chairman supported their opposition to this Bill, brought it up; but now that they find that it does not oppose the Bill in its present form, they are rather tired of the subject and are objecting to the opinion of the chairman of the commission being quoted against them.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), in reading the letter last night, distinctly stated that some of the requests of the commission were granted in the Bill, and some were not.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think they all are practically.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend will not say they all are.	'


Sydney Arthur Fisher: With one exception.


Richard Blain: A very important exception.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I will repeat my question. Does the Minister of Agriculture, as the minister having charge of the Conservation Commission, consider that a reference to that commission is conformed to by a reply from the chairman of the commission, and is that the way the Conservation Commission is going to do its work?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I would say that if the chairman of the commission is not authorized by the commission to act in that way, his reply would be of very little value except as an expression of his own personal opinion; but if the organization of

the commission authorizes the chairman to act for the commission in certain circumstances, then his reply would have the force of the commission behind it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend knows that there is no authority for the chairman to act in that way.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Not by statute.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then, upon the minister's own statement, there is no renort of the Conservation Commission on this Bill; and if we accept this letter from the chairman as the judgment of the Conservation Com mission, the hon. minister must see how dangerous a precedent we are etsablishing in dealing with the natural resources of this country. This is a precedent which the hon. Minister of Agriculture himself (Mr. Fisher) is supporting by his attitude in the House. It was he who explained last session the great value of this commission for the conservation of our nat ural resources in dealing with just such cases as this affecting federal, provincial and municipal matters, and I appeal to him, as a responsible minister of the Crown, not to allow this matter to be dealt with simply by one member of that commission. I ask him to see that where there has been a reference to the commission, that commission shall pass upon it as a body and not have it simply dealt with by one of its members, no matter how distinguished that member may be. It is the report of the commission as a whole that the parliament of Canada is entitled to, and that report the minister should see that parliament obtains.


Mr. MACDONELL.: We have had from the Minister of Agriculture the rather startling and novel statement that this parliament has the right to empower a private company to expropriate the public domain of any province. That is a claim which has never before been put forward in this House by any hon. gentleman much less by a minister of the Crown.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Is it not true that undei 'the provisions of the Railway Act, this company may get that power, and was not that Railway Act passed by this parliament and agreed to unanimously?


Angus Claude Macdonell: That is one reason why I object to this Bill. It is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada and the company are given very extensive powers under the Railway Act. We are indebted to the minister for this very frank statement of the policy of the government. It has never before been contended in this House that the Crown, as represented by the Dominion parliament, has the right to authorize the expropriation of the territory or domain of the Crown as
represented by any one province, because a province is just as much entitled to its Crown rights and the entirety of its Crown privileges. as is the Dominion. The provinces have just as much right to the preservation of their exclusive ownership to whatever property they possess. But the statement is now made for the first time that one Crown has the right to authorize a corporation to expropriate the right of another Crown. No court has held that doctrine in this country at any time. There was a case in British Columbia in which a company was given the right to expropriate the Crown domain for the purpose of carrying out an undertaking authorized by this parliament, but that had reference to Dominion lands in that province. The Minister of Agriculture went further and practically supported every clause in this Bill. What would be the use, therefore, of our acceding to the apparently moderate request of certain hon. gentlemen opposite that the first clause of this Bill should be passed? At the end of the final clause, the hon. gentleman was somewhat doubtful as to whether he would not add a line to it, but apart from that he is perfectly satisfied with the Bill. Apparently the government is going to force the Bill through, no matter what objections there may be to it. The hon. minister attempted to quiet the well founded apprehensions of hon. members representing the constituency of Montreal and he read the Railway Act to prove that this company has no power to enter upon the highways and byways of that city without its consent. Surely that is elementary. Every one knows section 247 of the Railway Act, and that section simply protects the municipalities to the extent that no one shall enter upon their highways without their consent. The Railway Act does not say that this company shall be bound by section 247 and. that it shall not enter the city of Montreal without the consent of the city.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Agriculture was not successful in using the words of the hon. member for Montreal, St. Mary's (Mr. Martin), because he resented and did not endorse the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Quite true, I was not in the House at the time, but I understand that to be the fact. This Bill gives this company the right to expropriate indiscriminately throughout the entire territory from Kingston to Montreal, inclusive. They have to buy their way, but they are given not only powers of expropriation, but the Bill gives the company the right to expropriate as far as they require expropriation powers.


Joseph Pierre Turcotte: With the authorization of the municipality.


Angus Claude Macdonell: No, without. I make the statement, and I challenge contradiction of it, that this Bill gives the right to this company to expropriate without the consent of the municipality. A company operating under the Kailway Act was bound to acquire in fee simple and pay the value of property expropriated, but this company have the additional right of being able to acquire any privilege or easement. It means that they can run their lines anywhere in the city of Montreal, upon the side of a building or over a building, and they can acquire a privilege or easement wherever they please. They do not have to expropriate a right of way. That costs a lot of money. They do not need to spend that money. They can simply acquire an easement or right or privilege and run their lines wherever they please; the company gets this power under subsection 4 of section II of the Bill. I hope that bon. gentlemen representing the city of Montreal will see the effect of this thing and join with those who are trying to protect provincial rights. The Minister of Agriculture said that he saw no peril in the amalgamation of this company with its predecessor, the St. Lawrence Power Company incorporated in 1901, that whatever rights the old company had they would retain, and that this company would retain its rights, but that they could not in any way by making a combination form one company, merge their powers and operate for the joint advantage of both companies. The minister is entirely mistaken, because if he will read the statute incorporating the St. Lawrence Power Company in 1901, he will see that by clause 11 this company have the power to amalgamate with the company which is now being formed, and that the rights possessed by each company will be owned by the joint company. The company which we are incorporating will possess the entire rights of the old company, the old company of 1901 will possess the entire rights of this company, and they will jointly have the enormous powers that are provided for in both cases. With the power given to the old company to amalgamate with this company, these two companies will become one and there will be one gigantic corporation enjoying the powers of the old power company, together with the very large privileges sought in this Bill by the distributing company.


Richard Blain: Why was that information not communicated to the Private Bills Committee?


Angus Claude Macdonell: I do not know. Possibly it was.


Richard Blain: No, my hon. friend from North Ontario says it was not.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Well, it is here in the Act. They bear on their face the evi-Mr. J. I*. TURCOTTE.
dence that they are one and the same. They have practically the same name, the old company being called the St. Lawrence Power Company, and this company being called the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company. If this company that is applying to-day was not in substance the old company, would not the old company object to the similarity of names? The minister sees no danger in the exportation of power to the States. I contend that it is extremely doubtful, under- both Bills, whether or not the company can be prohibited from exporting power, because the old Act contains no restriction whatever on the exportation of power. The company can sell its power.


James Conmee: No, the Exportation Act would cover that.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Chapter 16 of the Exportation of Fluid Act of 1907 provides for licenses to export power and unless this company is prohibited from exporting its power it has the right to apply for a license to the Governor in Council under the Act of 1907, and if there is no good reason why it should not get a license it will doubtless get one. There is no attempt made to say that this company shall be prohibited from exporting this power, and if it applies for a license no doubt it will be given the right to export its surplus. Let me point out the unwisdom of allowing our power to be exported. Let me refer to the condition that existed at Niagara Falls many years ago, a condition of affairs that we are now repeating on the St. Lawrence river. The International Waterways Commission found that they had developed power on the American side largely in excess of their right according to the flow of water, but having regard to the establishment of industries and vested rights they divided the power over the whole river by giving to Canada some 36,000 horse-power, and giving about 20,000 horse-power to the American side, whereas, if it had been dealt with on a proper basis, the American side would not have been entitled to more than one-sixth of the total power that could be developed as less than one-sixth of the water flowed over the American side. What has happened there will happen here, and history will repeat itself. You will have the water and power diverted to the American side, or you will have the power exported to the American side, and the Americans will get a great deal more than they are entitled to. Ultimately when the question comes up to be dealt with as an international question our rights will be sacrificed, and we will get the small end of the horn, and not what we are entitled to. It is claimed that we are obstructing because we are going on record as being in favour of protecting the interests of the people as against this

corporation which is seeking to be incorporated at the public expense for its own private interest and advantage. The Minister of Agriculture has made the startling statement that this House has a perfect right to incorporate a company, and give that company the right to expropriate the domain of any province. He justifies that by saying that the company may have to run across the bed of some provincial stream, and they should have the right to expropriate there. Does that justify the sweeping power given to this company to expropriate the public domain of Ontario throughout nine counties along the St. Lawrence from Kingston to Montreal? Ii the Bill is only intended to give the right to expropriate the river bed here and there whv not say so?


Mr. A. McCALL.: I musi discuss this Bill on the assumption that there is an intention to dam the St. Lawrence. That may not appear in this Bill, but it does in the Bill of 1901. I think it is clear that in time a dam will be erected across the St. Lawrence; that will be found to be the joker, the little elusive pea that is under the shell. We all agree that the St. Lawrence is one of our great national assets. It drains the, Great Lakes and'forms the only natural outlet for the trade of the best part of the north American continent. The Americans would give untold wealth if they could acquire the exclusive right to navigate the St. Lawrence from the lakes to the ocean. That is our great privilege, and we ought not to consent to put the slightest hindrance to the free flow of the trade that properly belongs to our great water route. So jealous are the American authorities on the subject that a proposal to build a bridge across the Detroit river was rejected at Washington, and the railways had to spend $12,000,000 to tunnel the river. The proposal to build a dam at the foot of Lake Erie, near Buffalo, to maintain the waters of the lake at standard level, has been rejected for fear of causing an ice jam with consequent flooding of the land bordering the lake and the checking of the flow of the Niagara river.
The building of such a dam as this on the SJ. Lawrence river would put a stop to the carriage of rafts of timber down the St. Lawrence, and it would destroy one of the great scenic attractions of the St. Lawrence river, the shooting of the rapids, which would be a very serious loss from a sentimental point of view.
The Welland canal is admittedly one of our greatest national assets. It has been enlarged three times, and the Minister of Railway and Canals proposes a still further enlargement. That would mean an enlargement and deepening of the St. Lawrence canals, but it is more likely that if this
dam is erected it will be found a serious obstruction in the enlargement of those canals, as the water supply might be affected and currents caused that did not before exist. The whole condition will be changed by this scheme of spoliation. By means of our great water routes we have it within our power to draw the trade of half of the north American continent, a trade which now taxes the American shipping interests and railroads. All that is open to us with a proper system of water transportation. Moreover, it is within the range of possibilities that ocean vessels will soon find their way up the lakes. We are face to face with the possibility of difficulties in connection with our coal supply from the United States. In connection with the discussion of tariff matters now pending there may be a difficulty in adjusting the question of duties. We are all looking forward to utilizing our own coal supply in Nova Scotia so as to make it serve the lake ports and the northwest. To do all this we require the unobstructed navigation of the St. Lawrence. This is a larger question than one of a week's discussion. It is much larger than the question of the transmission of power to a number of large towns. It should be considered from a national point of view. Hon. gentlemen should not consent to the alienation of this most valuable asset of the nation which we have in the St. Lawrence river. From every point of view we should not consider for a moment the possibility of an obstruction being placed in that waterway. If we agree in all this, can we not get together on this question? I am willing, in conclusion, to propose that we call this debate off and get out and have an old-fashioned game of snow-ball before the snow disappears-and I invite my friend Mr. Loggie to be my opponent in a friendly game-and we will come back on another day and dispose of this matter quickly.
Mr. HUGHES This morning three ministers were appealed to in succession by one of the hon. members on this side of the House, and each of them gave the clearest possible reason why this Bill should be postponed immediately. The Minister of Agriculture, in answer to the query what he thought of the Bill, stated that before he could answer he required to consider the Bill; the Minister of Labour stated that before he could express an opinion, he would require to consider the whole discussion ; and the Minister of the Interior stated that the question involved matters which had taken up twelve or fourteen hours of discussion, and he wanted more light. I appeal to the Minister of Militia, who is now leading the House, to comply with the very proper request of the leader of the opposition, that this Bill be laid over until fire plans can be looked into.



Committee divided on the question that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again: Yeas, 32; nays, 34.


Samuel Hughes: When this Bill first came before the Private Bills Committee, it attracted very little attention. Very few on this side of the House suspected that there was anything behind it. Our suspicions were first aroused by seeing the great interest taken in it by certain gentlemen who were never known to attend the meetings of the Private Bills Committee at all. They were there early and late; they drummed up their friends and urged all sorts of arguments for the passing of the Bill. On one occasion thirty or forty men deserted one power scheme in the Railway Committee to float another through in the Private Bills Committee. The spectacle naturally excited the attention even of honest plodding Conservatives, and we-thought it our duty to commence an inquiry Then suspicion grew, based on the rumour that behind this scheme was the plan to dam the St. Lawrence river, and hand over the entire water-power to this- grasping corporation of American trusts. I was amazed to see the determined interest taken in that Bill by the government. I strolled in, not expecting anything special on, but when I saw the activity of five or six ministers of the Crown in pushing through this private Bill, I began to suspect, to use an Americanism, that there was a nigger in the wood pile. The Minister of Public Works in a moment of excitement gave the whole story away. He frankly admitted that there was a connection between the two Bills, the St. Lawrence Power Company, and the St. Lawrence Power and Transmission Company. He admitted that he had been waited upon repeatedly during the la3t two years in the interest of that Bill, that this company had come to him and had shown him the plans for damming the St. Lawrence, and had talked the whole matter over with him, and he admitted that the two Bills were one and the same thing. Up to that time we had confined our efforts to preserving the rights of the province of Ontario. We asked the Minister of Public Works to let the Bill stand over until we could obtain information on certain matters, and that we might look more carefully into it. That was refused, they point blank refused to take, anything short of the passage of the entire Bill. Well, the Minister of Public Works saw that he could not carry his point. Then, as the night wore on, these gentlemen agreed to compromise the matter if we would pass the preamble, and all the clauses, leaving one to be reserved for discussion. We very properly rejected that proposition. We were determined then that before this Bill should go through the plans of that dam should be brought down, and we would see what was behind it all. I am sure that there is nothing that any Mr. HUGHES.
fair minded man on the government side could object to in the position we took. Then what was the next step on the programme? Two of these gentlemen from Ontario, the province that was being robbed of her natural resources, commenced in their usual manner to try and shove this matter through. They found that did not work. So in the small hours of the morning the government came to their senses, and another proposition was made that section 1 should be passed, and all the rest should stand over for consideration. But since we had been denied an opportunity to see the plans, we decided to reject that proposition. Our duty to our constituents demanded that we should get to the bottom of this whole matter. I see before me now three ministers who were not here during the night, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Labour, and the Minister of the Interior. Have they heard the reasons why this matter should be adjourned? I am sure the Secretary of State will join them in a desire for more light on this matter. I regard this as a most dangerous measure in the interests of the peace and good relationship which should exist between this country and the United States. I feel satisfied that if the Minister of Militia will only give my hon. friend the leader of the opposition a definite statement that these plans will be brought down we will be prepared to end this matter by the passage of section 1.


Frederick William Borden: I would not venture to give an assurance because I have not been here during the debate and I am not familiar with it at all, but I understand that the Minister of Public Works did make some offer during the debate.


Samuel Hughes: The Minister of Public Works did offer to bring the plans down, but he insisted that the Bill should go through. Later in the night he changed his tactics.


Frederick William Borden: Would the hon. gentleman again state that?


Samuel Hughes: I have no doubt that the leader of the opposition-and I believe he speaks for the entire party on this side-will accept the assurance of the minister that the plans will be laid on the table and in case that would be done we would be competent to pass clause 1.


Frederick William Borden: Would the opposition be willing to allow section 1 to pass? I am not able to state as to the plans.


Samuel Hughes: The Minister of Public Works promised to bring them down.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Smith) said that the plans were in the possession of everybody, that they were published.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Did he not say that they are not in the minister's office, but that they are in the possession of the Waterways Commission?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: You could easily send for them.


James Conmee: It might take a couple of days.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: You cannot reach the conclusion of the consideration of this Bill before the expiration of a couple of days.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say to the Minister of Militia that the difficulty originated in the very unreasonable attitude which was taken by the Minister of Finance who was leading the House last evening. I do not know whether it was his own view', but certainly he expressed it. There had been a very interesting and instructive discussion of this Bill. The opposition to it was not on party lines. The strongest attack upon the Bill was made by the hon. member for Westmorland, and a somewhat similar attack wlas made by the hon. member for Assiniboia. There was nothing to indicate a desire for anything except to ascertain all the facts, to get at the bottom of the project, and in the course of the debate the Minister of Public Works referred to certain plans and stated the purport of the plans that had been submitted to him. I asked the Minister of Public Works to lay the plans on the table of the House and I suggested at one o'clock, about an hour after the usual time of adjournment, that it was time for the committee to rise and report progress. The Minister of Finjance did not acquiesce in that view for some reason which I cannot apprehend. It was a most reasonable request. The request was rejected and the discussion went on. A little later a gentleman on the other side of the House intimated that it was the intention to sit until Saturday unless the opposition were prepared to give Way. That is the whole situation.


William Pugsley: Did my hon. friend wish information from me?


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I feel that I h ave got a good deal already, but I would be quite glad to get more. I want to know whether the minister intends to lay these plans on the table of the House. '


William Pugsley: I will be very frank with my hon. friend. I stated last night that I would be very glad indeed to lay the plans on the fable. The situation in regard t-o the plans is this:	There was a joint
report made by the chief engineer of the Public Works Department, the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals, and the chief engineer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries upon the amended plans. These plans were in charge of the late Deputy Minister of Railways 1745
and Canals, Mr. Butler. In accordance with the promise I made to my hon. friend I telephoned to the chief engineer of my department and I find that the plans are not in my department. Of course, they were submitted to the International Waterways Commission, but I am informed that it is not unlikely there is a copy of die plans in the Department of Railways and Canals. I have asked the deputy minister to see and, if they are available, I will have them this afternoon, and I will be very glad to lay them on the table of the House. If not I shall send to the chairman of the International Waterways Commission and get them here as soon as possible.


Richard Blain: How many sets of plans were there in connection with the work altogether?	,


William Pugsley: I only saw one set, which was submitted accompanied by the joint report.


Richard Blain: They were submitted as the amended plans, were they not?


William Pugsley: They were the amended plans. I am now referring to the amended plans upon which the three engineers reported.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that I have any special warrant or authority to speak on behalf of those who are opposing this Bill. Some are on the other side of the House, but, as far as I am concerned, I would like to ask the minister whether or not the plans to w'hich he alludes and which he has said he would be glad to lay on the table of the House, include any reports in connection "with the plans?


William Pugsley: Yes, there is the joint report made by the three engineers and my desire is to submit that at the same time.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I would recommend to my friends, as far as I have any influence with them in regard to a matter of this kind, that upon the assurance of the minister that these will be laid upon the table before the Bill is taken up again, we should allow the first clause of the Bill to pass upon the condition that the committee shhll immediately afterwards rise and report progress. I cannot, speak for hon. gentlemen on the other .side of the House who are opposing this Bill with fierce determination, but perhaps the Minister of Public Works can use his persuasive powers to induce them to agree to the same thing.


William Pugsley: I have just had communication with my hon. friend from Lambton, who is in charge of the Bill, and he would be quite willing, and I think 1 can speak for other gentlemen on this side of the House, if the first clause is allowed to pass, then to report progress, with the

understanding that I will get the plans as soon as possible, and have them laid on the table.
Mr, R. L. BOEDEN. And that they shall be laid on the table before the Bill is taken up again.


William Pugsley: I do not say that; but if the plans are not laid on the table, there will be the best possible reason for it. They will be laid on the table if they are available, and I have not a shadow of doubt that they will be available. I may have them this afternoon.


Frederick William Borden: In case the plans are not laid on the table; it will be for the committee to consider the very good reason which my hon. friend thinks he can produce.


William Pugsley: I do not think that question will arise at all, for I have no doubt that the plans will be submitted.


Richard Blain: These will include all the plans that have been under consideration by the government, including the modified plan which my hon. friend referred to a few days ago in the House.


William Pugsley: What I had in mind was the final plans, those which were recommended by' the engineers, and accompanied by their report.


Richard Blain: In order that there may be no mistake, I refer to ' Hansard ' of January 18:


John Dowsley Reid: I would ask the government if the rumour is true that a deputation from Montreal waited on the government yesterday to ask that they be granted the privilege of placing a dam across the St. Lawrence river? If so, has any decision been arrived at?


William Pugsley: There was a deputation consisting of representatives of the company which proposes to develop the power, and that deputation presented certain statements to the Committee of the Privy Council.


John Dowsley Reid: Was any decision arrived at?


William Pugsley: No, it was understood that they would present a modified plan to the International Waterways Commission, and that commission would give an opportunity to the navigation interests and those who might naturally be opposed to any obstructions to navigation, to be heard. After that the matter would come again before the government for consideration.


William Pugsley: That is the plan which I would propose to lay upon the table, together with the joint- report of the three engineers in reference to that plan.


Richard Blain: When my hon. friend made this statement, I presume that there were two sets of plans submitted by the company to the members of the Privy Council. Will he submit both?


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: What I mean is that I will submit the modified plans, which were approved of by the engineers. With regard to the plans first filed, I could not undertake to submit them, because they may have been withdrawn; but the important point is to have the modified plans, accompanied by the report of the engineers.


Samuel Hughes: As I cannot understand how a dam 42 feet high can be placed where a dam of 20 feet would flood the countryside, I would like the minister also to bring down profiles.	-


William Pugsley: I shall be glad to bring down all the plans which are in the possession of any of the three departments, together with the report of the engineers.
Section 1 agreed to, and progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 136) respecting the St. Clair and Erie Ship Canal Company.-Mr. Mc-Coll.
Bill (No. 98) respecting the Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Doherty.
Bill (No. 123) respecting the Central Canada Manufacturers Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. D. A. Gorden.
Bill (No. 124) respecting the Eastern Canada Manufacturers Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. D. A. Gordon.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 156) to incorporate the Wey-burn Security Bank.-Mr. Turiff.
Bill (No. 157) for the relief of Cecilia Marie Pringle.-Mr. Price.
Bill (No. 161) respecting the Sovereign Trust Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 153) for the relief of James Albert Green.-Mr. Prowse.
Bill (No. 164) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. NESBITT moved the second reading of (Bill No. 158) for the relief of Ada Ann Reid.
Arthur Cyril Boyce: I desire with some reluctance to point out to the House, some features in connection with this Bill. Doubtless, most of the members have read the evidence. It does seem to me that the committee before whom the witnesses were examined must have proceeded upon a very extraordinary method of dealing with the evidence. There are two matters which contain the substance of the evidence on which the relief was based. One was the

co-habitation of the respondent with another woman and the other was the production of evidence tending to show that the respondent was afflicted with a venereal disease. I present to the House this proposition that upon a perusal of the evidence given before the Senate Committee and sent over to this House there is not one fact from which even a presumption, if a presumption were proper, could be drawn as to the affirmative of either of those two facts. What-is the evidence with regard to co-habitation with another woman? There is the evidence of only one witness, a medical clergyman, and the whole statement by that one witness consists of his having met this man in a shanty in the Yukon or in Alaska territory out of which shanty, before he went there, he had met a woman coming. That is the whole evidence with the exception of what he states himself was evidence of a notorious fact with regard to co-habitation which as all lion, gentlemen know is no evidence at all where the direct fact has to 'be proved. The evidence with regard to the other part of it, from which fact if proved might be drawn a presumption of infidelity, is absolutely wanting. It is the evidence of a medical man, a man used to the care of the sick. He at first stated that it was his opinion that this respondent was afflicted with that disease, but when he is asked, not on crossexamination but in examination in chief, whether he is sure of that fact he says: No, he is not, it had the appearance of that, but it might be something else. I do not desire to interfere in a private Bill or to prevent relief which doubtless is, apart from the weighty considerations attached to it, very much to be desired between two people evidently not mated to one another. I do not desire to interfere, but I feel it my duty to submit to you and to the House the fact that it appears to me that there are absolutely wanting any elements and all elements on which this House can safely proceed to give the relief asked for by this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
4.	Will the papers relating to such investigation, if any, be laid on the table of the House?
Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Investigated during the month of July, 1909. Result : Charges not sustained.
4.	Yes.



MONTREAL HARBOUR BERTHS.

Mr. MONK.:: 1.	Upon what dates were the local berth allotments made by the Montreal Harbour Commission in the years' 1907, 1908 and 1909?
2.	Has such allotments been made for the season of 1910? If so, when? If not, why not?
3.	Has any complaint reached the government from shipping companies or importers regarding delay in the allotment of berths by said commission?
4.	Is it a fact that shipping companies are unwilling to quote freight rates until the berths have been allotted?
5.	Is it a fact that importers are in consequence said to be unable to calculate the cost of imports which must be delivered f.o.b. at their destination in distribution throughout Canada ?
6.	Are the sittings of the commission open to the public, and have any complaints been received that the sittings are held in camera?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: Answers to questions 1 and 2 are furnished by the Montreal Harbour Commissioners.
1.	1907, 8th March; 1908, 27th February; 1909, 24th March.
2.	Not yet, for the reason that on the 25th February, when the allotments of berths with permanent sheds were made for Transatlantic steamers delay was given until 10th March, for acceptance of allotments, which were made conditionally, and which delay was, on the 8th March, at the request of the shipping agents, extended to the 21st March, and until a decision was arrived at concerning the allotment of berths for Transatlantic steamers it was not considered advisable to make local berth allotments.
3.	No.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
4 and 5. The government has no information on the subject.
6. No.
EMPLOYMENT OF FRITZ* CIRKLE.

Mr. STRATTON:: 1.	Has Mr. Fritz Cirkle been employed by the Department of Mines?
2.	Has the attention of the department been called to alleged unprofessional conduct on the part of Mr. Cirkle during the time he was said to be employed by the department?
3.	If so, was there an investigation into such charge and what was the result?


Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	What proportion of officers and other ranks of the permanent forces, respectively, are native horn Canadians?
2.	To what extent has recruiting for the Canadian permanent services been carried on among discharged soldiers of the imperial army?
3.	What number of officers and other ranks,

respectively, have been transferred from the imperial army to the Canadian permanent forces ?
4.	Has service in the imperial army been admitted under the Militia Pensions Act other than as respects the officers and men transferred to the Canadian service on the taking over of Halifax and Esquimalt? If so, under what authority?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Approximately ninety per cent of the
officers and twenty per cent of the rank and file.	_
2.	Discharged soldiers of the imperial army are enlisted provided they fulfil the conditions required for enlistment in the permanent forces, and vacancies exist.
3.	431.
4.	No.


SURVEY CHU-CHU-W AY-HA RESERVE.
Mr. BURRELL:: Were written instructions given to Capt. Jemmett in connection with the survey in 1889 of Chu-chu-way-ha reserve No. 2 Similika-meen district, B.C.? If so, what was the wording of such instructions?


Frank Oliver: Instructions to surveyors in British Columbia, including those to Capt. Jemmett, were issued direct from the office of the reserve commissioner, under authority of the Dominion and provincial governments, for the purpose of allotting and defining the Indian reserves in that province. The particular instructions given to Capt. Jemmett are not of record in the Department of Indian Affairs at Ottawa.


ROSS RIFLE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	How many Ross Rifles Mark II. have been received from the manufacturers to date?
2.	What further number, if any, have been -contracted for ?
3.	How many bayonets for the Ross rifle have been received from the manufacturers to date ?
4.	What further number, if any, have been *contracted for?
5.	How many Ross Rifles Mark I. are on store charge and on issue to militia corps, respectively ?
6.	How many Ross Rifles Mark II. are on store charge and on issue to militia corps, respectively?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	60,000 up to 3rd instant.
2.	3,000.
3.	47,500 up to 3rd instant.
4.	4,500.
5.
On ordnance charge	 5,024
Under orders for distribution to units 3,952
Converted to parts	 2


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: With inspector of small arms....	5
Lost (paid for)	 17
9,000
6.
On ordnance charge	 39,322
On units charge	 [DOT] 18,041
Under orders for distribution to units 1,173
Converted to parts	 149
Royal Northwest Mounted Police.. 1,000 With inspector of small arms for
conversion	 15
In use with sub-target machines..	300
60,000
With regard to the replies to questions Nos. 5 and 6, rifles shown as 'under orders for distribution to units' have been converted by the inspector of small arms, and are now awaiting removal for issue.


MAJOR DE LA RONDE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Has the Department of'Justice yet dealt with the case of the investigation by a Militia Court of Inquiry into charges of malfeasance of office said to have been preferred against Major S. E. de la Ronde and Captain S. E. de la Ronde, jr., of the Army Service Corps? If so, what was the nature of the action taken or advised ? If not, when is it expected that this matter of alleged infraction of the Criminal Code by officers occupying positions of trust in militia service will be disposed of?
2.	Is the government aware that Major S. E. de la Ronde has been replaced in the office of Chief of Police of the city of Ottawa?
3.	Is the government aware that, while resting under the onus of charges said to have been formally made against him by officers of his corps, which were stated by the Minister of Militia and Defence to the House to be ' sub judice,' Major S. E de la Ronde officially called upon the officers who had preferred such charges against him to submit their resignations in writing as officers of the corps? If so, was such action taken by direction or with the approval of the Militia Council?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Advice has been given by the Department of Justice in regard to some features of the case. Such advice is confidential in its character, and the case it at present under consideration in the Department of Justice in regard to other features of it.
2.	The government has no official information with reference to this matter.
3.	This particular rumour has not yet reached the government except as suggested by the question.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all memorials, reports of surveys, engineers' reports, estimates, correspondence and documents in the possession of the Department of Railways and Canals, and of the Intercolonial Railway Commission, relat-

mg to the survey and construction of a proposed branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway through New London and along the north shore of Queens county, in that island. -Mr. Warburton.
For a copy of all memorials, reports of surveys, engineers' reports, estimates, correspondence and documents in the possession of the Department of Railways and Canals, and the Intercolonial Railway Commission, relating to the survey and construction of a proposed branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway to the west shore in lots 7 and 8 in that island.-Mr. Richards.
For a copy of all correspondence, proceedings of courts of inquiry, and other documents, respecting the dismissal from His Majesty's service by the Governor in Council of 'officers of the Canadian militia, during the past ten years, without trial or option of trial, by a legally constituted military or civil tribunal having statutory powers of trial and punishment.-Mr. Worthington.
For a copy of all correspondence, reports, documents and papers relating to the strike of the employees of the Dominion Coal Company and the Cumberland Coal and Railway Company, in the counties of Cape Bretod and Cumberland, Nova Scotia.-Mr. Rhodes.
For a return showing: 'Since the appointment of the Government Railways' Managing Board, how many employees.of the Intercolonial Railway have been dismissed at Truro, at Halifax, and at Stellarton respectively, with their respective names; at what kind of work each was employed; on what dates respectively, each one was dismissed; how many of them since re-employed; on what dates respectively, each one was re-employed how long since such re-employment each one has remained in the service; how many of them are still in the service, with their names and what each one is employed at'-Mr. Rhodes.
For a return showing the names of all persons who have been fined for breach of fisheries regulations in the coast waters of the counties of Pictou and Cumberland, Nova Scotia, and Westmorland, New Brunswick, during the years 1907, 1908 and 1909, together with a full statement of the penalties inflicted, moneys collected, and fines or portion thereof remitted, if any, in each case, and for a copy of all instructions issued, reports, correspondence and documents relating in any manner thereto.-Mr. Rhodes.
For a return showing, for the last two months, the time of each transmission of mails from Montreal to London, England, and from London, England, to Montreal, and showing the date and hour of closing, and date and hour of delivery in each case.-Mr. Monk.
For a return showing what amount of money has been paid each year to Geo. Walton, Manitoba, by the Interior Department, from January 1, 1906, to December 81, 1909; and what moneys Mr. Geo. Walton has received since January 1, 1909, from any other department of the government.-Mr. Schaffner.
For a return showing the number of accidents to trains on the Intercolonial railway between April 1, 1909, and present date, and the location and particulars of each; the
number of persons killed or injured in each of such accidents since April 1, 1909, to date; and the cost of each of such accidents to the Intercolonial railway, respectively, for repairs, property destroyed, compensation to passengers, and for compensation to shippers for freight and baggage.-Mr. Stanfield.
For a return showing the number of accidents to trains of the Intercolonial railway for ten months, from April 1, 1908, to December 31, 1908; the number of persons killed or injured in each of such accidents for ten months, from April 1, 1908, to December 31, 1908; and the cost of each of such accident to the Intercolonial railway, respectively, for repairs, property destroyed, compensation to passengers, and for compensation to shippers for freight and baggage.-Mr. Stanfield.
For a return showing on what occasions counsel has been employed by this government, or paid out of the public funds of Canada, to represent or act for witnesses before the Public Accounts Committee, or to represent or act for the Transcontinental Railway Commission, in respect of the examination of witnesses before such committee, with the names and addresses of such counsel, when they were paid, for whom they were acting and what services they actually rendered.- Mr. Rhodes.	,
For a copy of all papers and correspondence relating to the sale and refund of the money paid on the sale of the N.E. J section of section 11, township 1, range 9, west of the 1st meridian in Manitoba.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe, (Lisgar).
For a copy of all correspondence, papers, affidavits, cancellations, &c., in connection with the entry of Wm. Reid Gardiner, for the N.W. J section 22, township 35, range 16, west of the 2nd meridian.-Mr. Roche.
For a return showing the names of the sessional and temporary employees of the House of Commons who were under pay on the 27th January last; and the number of the said employees stated in the estimates of 1909-10. -Mr. Best.
For a copy of all papers and correspondence between different persons or companies and the Department of Mines, in reference to a charge of unprofessional conduct made in the ' Canadian Mining Journal' of July 1, 1909, against Mr. Fritz Cirkle, a mining engineer, temporarily employed by the Department of Mines in preparing a report on the asbestos mining industry of the province of Quebec.- Mr. R. Smith.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 102) respecting immigration. He said: In view of the fact that some explanation was given on the inrodnction of the Biil. and in view of the further fact that the Bill was before the House during a great deal of last session, it will not be necessary to make any very lengthy introductory remarks. The main reason for the introduction of the Bill is not so much the desire to change the policy of the government
[Stage Direction]
as to facilitate the administration of that policy to a degree that is not provided for under the present Act, and to bring out, as clearly and as fully as possible in the form of the Act, what the policy of the government is, so that all parties interested may understand it.
There have been, of course, changes of conditions since the Act of 1906 was passed. One important change, and one that leads to a number of amendments in detail which appear in this Bill, is the necessity which has arisen for the exclusion of immigrants at international boundary ports. Up to the time of the passing of the Bill of 1906, there had not arisen, so far as we then understood the matter, any necessity for special efforts toward the exclusion of immigrants at these points. It was understood that there was such necessity at ocean ports, but in the framing the details were not made so Clearly applicable. Since then, cause has arisen for quite as strict exclusion provisions at international boundary ports as at ocean ports, .and necessarily, in the application of .the policy of the government, there are points arising from day to day which make it desirable that they should be made as far as possible in legislation, so that, as I said, all parties interested shall have due notice of the intention of the government in administering its policy. There are many changes in detail throughout the Bill-all these changes in the Bill are changes of detail and not of policy. Some of them are important-in fact, we believe them all important or they would not have been proposed-but they are made for the purpose of carrying out mere thoroughly and with more notice of the public the policy of the government, rather than to secure any change in the policy or in methods of administration.
One or two of the more important details I may mention. One is to define the word ' domicile.' As matters stand at present, the person who has once lived in Canada is entitled to come back, whether he is desirable or not. We agree that after a man has established his domicile in Canada, whether he has become a citizen or not, he should be entitled to re-entry into Canada. But there has been an indefiniteness on that point which should be cleared up as far as it can be cleared up. We are aware that a definition of ' domicile ' is very difficult, but, for the purposes of this Act, for the better administration of the government's policy and for the better information of the public-both immigrants and those interested in transportation-we think it well that this word ' domicile ' should be defined as clearly as possible. There is another very important provision, one which may not meet with the approval of the House. I drew attention to it when. I brought the Bill before the House in the first piace, and I again draw attention to Mr. OLIVER.
it. This is a provision which, while guaranteeing to the immigrant every opportunity to establish his right to enter the country-guaranteeing to him the full opportunity of giving evidence and of having that evidence recorded, with the right of appeal -yet does not permit the immigrant to take advantage of the protection of the courts until he has passed the administrative authority of the government at the port of landing. We believe that it is desirable, in the interest of proper exclusion of undesirable immigrants, that this provision should be made. We understand that it is a somewhat radical provision, and as I have said, it may not meet the approval of the House. But, as I have said also, we believe that it would be in the best interest of immigrants, transportation companies and the country generally if that provision were adopted. As I have suggested, there being no change in policy or administration intended, it will be more convenient to deal with the changes of detail as we come to them in the different clauses of the Bill, and with the opportunities of explanation and discussion that are afforded when the House is in committee.
Mr. BLA1N. Is there a demand from any part of Canada to abolish altogether assisted immigration?
Frank Oliver: There is no assisted immigration into Canada so far as this government is concerned. I know of no demand to abolish that which, in this case, does not exist.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Does this Bill apply to Doukhobors?


Frank Oliver: Yes, it applies to all my hon. friend's (Mr. Campbell) friends.


.


Glenlyon Campbell: I want to tell the hon. Minister of the Interior that, if he is going to class me with the Doukhobors, he is like Paddy's dog, making a mistake. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that while they are perhaps pets, the so-called Sifton pets of this government, they are no pets of mine, and I will tell the hon. gentleman the reason. They have been a detriment to the civilization of the west in every possible manner. They have been a people so immorally indecent-innocent perhaps- that they have been a disgrace to the people of the west, and to the administration that brought them here. I want to ask the Minister of the Interior, if he will come down from the lofty position of levity he is assuming, how many of these people he expects, and how he is going to take care of them? I want to ask him what the cost has been to the Dominion in the past in bringing that class of immigrants into this country; and further, what cost it has been tc the decent self-respecting people of Canada in taking care of them, and keeping them in some way of decency since they

came. I want to ask him what the cost has been to compel these people to comply with the laws of Canada, that all other immigrants are obliged to comply with.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps it would be as well to defer question and answer of this nature until we are in committee. I am unable to give my hon. friend at the moment the information he asks for. He has asked for considerable information in thg way of figures and facts, of course he does not expect me to have them in hand. But I will be glad to furnish all the information we have that he has asked for. The intention of the Bill, and the policy of the government, is .that all immigration shall be treated on exactly the same footing, on the same basis, according to their merits, irrespective of their race or religion. Our purpose in the Bill is to put before the public as plainly as we can what the policy of the government is, so that there may be no misapprehension in regard to it.


Glenlyon Campbell: I would ask the minister if, after the experience of this government with regard to that particular class of people, he considers them desirable as immigrants?


Frank Oliver: As I have said already, I think it would be more in order that question and answer should pass across the House while we are in committee. But as my hon. friend has asked me a question,. I can only say that I do not think it is a matter of concern to this House what my private opinion may be in regard to that subject.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am merely asking


Mr. SPEAKER.: On the second reading the rule applies that a member can only speak once.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am not presuming to speak, I am only presuming to ask a question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The object of going into committee is to allow discussion to be carried on more freely.


Mr. MONK.: I can tell my hon. friend what it cost us to move the Doukhobors out here. The transportation of the Doukhobors by the government from their native country to their settlement in the Northwest, cost $48,000. That was the answer given several days ago in the House by the government when asked upon that >
point. But it must not be forgotten that since they are in this country they have cost us large sums of money every time there has been amongst them a breaking out which is familiar to most of the members of this House. One is naturally led to inquire whether we have not advanced far enough to take precautionary measures before we import into this country in large
numbers certain classes of people. That is a question that naturally arises at this stage of the legislation. Nor is it, I think, for the minister to say that we have not state-aided immigration. We have not state-aided immigration in the sense that we do not take the immigrant at our own expense on foreign shores and bring him here. There are not many nations that do that, in fact I do not know of any. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) alluded to the system we have followed of bonus-ing immigrants in the first place, and in the next place of keeping a large number1 of immigration agents in different parts of the world, many of them at great expense, and to very little purpose. Should we continue that system? Is it wise, for instance, to keep in the United States so many immigration agents, who are merely nominees of the government for political purposes, and who do very little there, when we see, as we do at this moment, such large numbers of immigrants coming into this country, according to my mind, without any particular action on the part of these agents that cost us so dear? They came in last year, I think over 60,000 from the United States. We are not in a position to say how many of these men were brought in through the action of these very expensive immigration agents, I think none at all. We have no trace of any one that was brought in by our agents from Michigan or Minnesota. Look at the expense of those agents, the paucity of their reports. Indeed, we have no reports from them in the departmental report. There is a general report from the chief, but surely when an agent in Michigan, or some other state, costs us between $6,000 and $8,000 a year, we ought to get from him a detailed statement, some document that would give us information showing what use he is to the country and what results he has obtained. Hon. members of the House know that we have also in England and in many parts of the continent immigration agents, and even there I question if they are of much use to us. I think the time has arrived for Canada, as for the United States, to adopt a different policy, not catering for immigrants, but making a suitable advertisement of this country by a grant when exhibitions occur, keeping an office in London in a general way, but not paying men to remain over there for the purpose of soliciting immigrants. I think the time has come when such an effort on our part is superfluous. So I think I am right in saying that we have an absolutely different policy from that of the United States, who receive over a million immigrants a year, and sometimes more than that. They are overcrowded with immigrants, without paying a single cent for soliciting them. On the contrary, they charge a head tax which leaves a

handsome surplus and enables them to defray entirely a system of inspection.


Richard Blain: Does not my hon. friend think that the policy of this government is in reality a policy of assisted immigration?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly, I call it assisted immigration, as much so as in any country that adopts it. My hon. friend thinks that assisted immigration means defraying part of the expense of immigrants who come out here.


Richard Blain: I have no such thought in my mind.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then we assist immigration in that we provide considerable help for the immigrant when he arrives. That, I think, to a certain extent, might continue. We have spent a great deal of money on hospitals and inspection. I heard from a medical man that the disease of trachoma, which is a great pest in eastern Europe, has spread very considerably, and that it now exists in different parts of Canada. For a time we had it in Montreal, and I believe they have had it in certain parts of the west. The minister speaks of this Bill as being a continuation of the policy of the government. I do not think he is altogether correct in that. This Bill is getting away from the policy of the time when we spent $50,000, and more in importing Douk-hobors, and making special conditions for them, one of which was that they would be entirely exempt from one of the duties of every citizen of this country -military duty. That would not be done to-day by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior. This Bill is an improvement and I regret that we did not adopt it last year. But, that improvement-let us be fair-is due to two causes particularly. In the first place, it is due to the criticism which for several years we have offered in this House of the system of immigration as it is being continued. It was more or less the system which brought the Doukhobors in. The inspection was insufficient and faulty in many respects. The principle of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), who then occupied the position of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, was to fill the country up at any cost with anybody, provided we crowded up the country, and could report to the people that the immense prosperity of Canada was producing this result. We criticised that system. We pointed out that every man admitted to the Canadian family should only be admitted after careful examination. We were .seconded by the immigration officers of the United States who made representations to this government that they were not exercising due severity in the examination of the immigrants that we bonused to come Mr. MONK.
here, and who then went over to the United States, because that course had been followed for a long time. Bonused immigrants passed over to the United States. The Americans got the cream of them, and those that they refused remained in this country with their diseases and short-comings. That criticism brought about an improvement in the regulations. The representations of the American officers in their yearly reports on immigration in which they blamed very severely what we were doing brought about this change, and I think we can claim some of the credit for having brought about the improvement in this line. But, let the House bear in mind that even to-day we keep no trace of the immigrants who came here. Where do they go? About 60,000 Americans came into Canada last year. I think a larger number went from Canada to the United States.


Mr. SCHAFFNEK.: 85,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Who were they? You must, under your immigration system, trace those who come in, and those who go out. We do not trace those who go out, and until we have a provision to that effect in our law, our law would be failing in that respect. We have spent millions a year in securing immigration, we should know that we have it here, and I think we are getting the full benefit of this expenditure. We ought to know who are going out too. We ought to know if our own people are going out. There was a time when there was a large exodus from Quebec, and the maritime provinces, and when the best in those provinces left . us. We should know that, and we should rather spend our money to find that out than to take it to pay our cousins, our friends and our defeated candidates, large salaries to do, we do not know what, in the United States, and elsewhere. There is an improvement in that policy, and some of the credit for that improvement is due to us, but as the minister is not always willing to give it, it is better to call the attention of the House to it. I notice some points in connection with this new legislation to which I desire to particularly call the attention of the House. This Bill fails entirely, as every other Bill has failed, to provide for moral guarantees with respect to immigration. We continue to receive somewhere about a quarter of a million people every year without any inquiry whatever as to who they are or as to what are their moral qualifications. Who are the men who compose this vast herd that is going to make up the nation here, and that is going to enter into our families? I contend that we should endeavour to secure some certainty as to who these people are. I do not pretend to solve absolutely the problem that presents itself as

to how that can be done, but no effort is attempted in that direction. Could we not secure some certainty as to his moral qualifications from the immigrant before his embarkation? It seems that that could be done since we have a staff of immigration agents in foreign countries. At any rate, could the immigrant, when he arrives, bring something to show where he comes from, and who he is? This is just as important as the physical examination. Members of this House who have given this matter any attention know that when the immigrant arrives in a batch of 1,200, and sometimes 2,000 on a ship, he passes the physical examination very quickly. The inspector general told us once at the Immigration Committee that as many as four a minute passed the inspecting medical officer. It is somewhat difficult even to ascertain the physical condition. He is detained, of course, if there is some suspicion as to his condition. What about his moral qualification? Would it not be necessary that a man should be required to bring, when he comes to this country, some reference, something from the mayor of his municipality, from some responsible officer, from somebody, to show that he is not a criminal, and that he ought to be welcomed into this country? You do not admit a man into your family without letters of introduction. When these people come in large numbers we ought to have some means of ascertaining who they are, because it is needless to say that a vast number of those found in our jails in Montreal, and in Toronto, and in the jails, penitentiaries, and houses of refuge of Ontario, and -of my^own province, and probably in others there is an undue proportion of foreign criminals. I think that we might, before the immigrant starts out, or at any rate when he arrives here, have some means to get from him guarantees as to his moral qualifications. A very serious question arises as to whether it would not be an act of humanity to the immigrant himself, a great economy for ourselves, and generally a better course to secure the examination physically before he leaves foreign shores.
I am sure that is possible. It is done in the United States to a very large extent. They have an examination at the port of destination, no doubt; but I understand that in the great ports of embarkation in Europe there is an officer who examines the emigrants. I think that last year the cost of our deportations considerably exceeded $25,000, because even though the transportation companies are obliged to take a man back if he is rejected at the port of debarkation, or after a certain delay, still he sometimes wanders into the country and causes great expense to the municipalities and to the government before he is
brought back under guard to the place of embarkation and handed back to the country from which he came. Anyway it is a great expense and a fearful hardship. You have to separate families; you return |a man to Europe and land him there penniless and hopeless. Instances appear from time to time in the papers. This is a matter which I think ought to engage the attention of the government. I repeat what has already formed the subject of a question by my hon. friend from Peel: ought we not now to abolish state aid in any form? Canada is becoming well known; we advertise it, and should continue to make it known everywhere in the proper way; but should we pay more bonuses? The answer given to the question of the hen. member for Peel was that there was now no state aid properly so called. But it must be borne in mind that the labouring classes in the country, through the Trades Congress and other societies, have from time to time called on the government to abolish bonuses, giving reasons therefor, and coming and urging these reasons verbally on the government. There is, therefore, a large class, and a class exposed to suffer from bonused immigrants, who have repeatedly asked for the abolition of bonuses. I think that the Bill, even in its incomplete and imperfect state, is a considerable improvement on past legislation. There is a point which I wish to make in favour of the immigrants, and it is the result of representations made to me in the city of Montreal and elsewhere, not by government officials as a rule, but by men who are familiar with immigration and who take a large part in assisting worthy immigrants. Is it right to fix the amount of money which an immigrant on landing should have? I have often raised an objection to that. It very often happens that an immigrant who lands without a cent, is just the man to fall to work at once; he may be an excellent immigrant, eager to work, and yet because he has not that fixed sum in his hand, he is sent back. There is no discretion in the office. Lately my attention has been called to Syrians, who are to be found in Montreal and elsewhere. They came to this country very poor, but I am not aware that there has ever been a Syrian who has required public aid. Why should we not admit into this country men of that race, or of any other race, if they are willing to work, and' are qualified in every other respect to become excellent settlers? A man who arrives here with more than the requisite sum of money may be a very unfit man, who intends to live on that money and afterwards to rove. This is the testimony I have heard from men who follow closely the movement of immigrants. When I first raised this question, I was told by my hon. friend that it was a dangerous discretion to leave to the officer

who inspects. Surely an officer who is obliged in a few moments to judge of the moral, physical and general qualifications of an immigrant ought to be able to say whether he has sufficient resources upon him or whether he is disposed to become a public charge. If he is a suitable officer for this important function, he ought to be able to exercise that discretion. On the whole, I think the Bill is a good one, because it constitutes a progress on the laxity of previous legislation; but I shall never be satisfied, so far as I am concerned, until we advance a step further-until we consider that the admission of an immigrant into this country is not a goal to be sought for at all costs. The country is rich, we are called on to make a great country of it, and we ought not to admit any but the most suitable into it. We should go further even than the Americans have gone in the selection of those who are to constitute so large a section of the Canadian people.


Andrew Broder: I am sure that the members generally are glad to realize that the government are getting a little more exacting in regard to the class of immigrants who are allowed to come into this country. We have an agent of the Department of the Interior living at Iroquois, in the county of Dundas, who has had to do with deporting undesirable immigrants, and I am glad to say that I think he is very attentive to his duties and uses a good deal of judgment in carrying out the law. This is required, because an official ought to be able to tell, on looking at an individual, whether he has money or not, what is in him. But there is a more serious side to this question than perhaps even the minister is aware of. We sometimes hear it said that there are no more people leaving Canada than are coming into it. I want to show that that is a fallacy, and every patriotic Canadian will be sorry that that is the case. I hold in my hand the report of the Commissioner General of Immigration of the United States for 1909. Every one who looks into these records will realize that they are very thorough and effective in all their statistical work. I was simply astounded in looking over this report to find these figures. He gives there figures of those who have come into Canada, acknowledging the courtesy of the department here in giving these figures. He says;
Through the courtesy of the superintendent of the Immigration Department I am able to invite the attention of the bureau to the record of immigration to Canada for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1909, such record being as follows:-
He gives the different months, but I shall simply give the totals.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Total for the	British Isles.. .. 47,407
"	Continental	
32,315"	United	States	
72,349Total	
152,071
What surprises me, and I think that which must strike everybody as a very undesirable condition of things, are the following figures. He gives the number of people who have gone out of this country:
Aliens manifested on board steamships and examined at ports of arrival under the immigration laws of the
United States	15,417
Aliens coming originally to Canada and who sought entry to the United States within one year from date of arrival. 6,116 Aliens who entered Canada via United States ports, and aliens from the United States who sought re-entry
thereto within one year	 9,195
Aliens claiming residence or more than one year in Canada, but who were unable to give satisfactory proof thereof. 4,454 Aliens who applied for admission to the United States after a residence of more than one year in Canada (the transportation companies , being exempt from payment of head-tax as to this
class)	12,920
Citizens of Canada entering the United States for permanent residence.. .. 33,118
Total	81,520
In addition to that there should be added United States citizens returned to the United States after a residence in Canada, approximated 15,000 people, making a grand total of 96,520. Deducting this from the total immigration of 152,071 we find that we have a balance of 55,551 in our favour.
We swapped off 34,000 Canadians, our own people, the best citizens we yould have, for aliens from Europe, or some other country. This is a condition of things that should be more thoroughly looked into. The figures are carefully collated, and there is no doubt that they are correct. We hear so much about the outflow being stopped, about no more Canadians leaving Canada. There never were so many leaving in our history as there are now. I can quite understand the 15,000 Americans who go back home. They come here and buy land, and go home, they are speculating in our lands. They have not got their coats off, they come over here with their pocket books. We hear so much about $92,000,000 coming into the country with these people. If a man comes into our country with $92,000,000 and invests it and makes the price double in ten years, if he is not doing so much, for this country, especially, if he goes home with his coat on to wait until those lands become valuable. Fifteen thousand people have done that.
Another astounding thing to me is that coming and going by our different transportation lines into the United States, and

back again last year 8,000,000 passengers passed to and fro between this country and the United States according to thi3 book. These are rather astonishing figures to contemplate, that is more than the whole population of this country. That is a large outflow compared with what we thought there was and some record should be kept of the fluctuation of population. If we cannot fasten them down somewhere, we ought to be more careful about bringing them in.
I can understand the effort made a few years ago to bring all kinds of people into this country. Why? Because a good many men influential with the government wanted to see the prices of land go up because they were holders, and therefore wanted to fill the country with any class of immigrants who would come in order to make lands in the Northwest more valuable.
Another serious question is the outflow of people from the older provinces to the west. I do not find fault with that, the western country is the heritage of the older provinces; but there should be some attempt on the part of the government to counteract that in some sense by bringing other people into the older provinces to take the places of those who leave. There are no better pioneers than our own Canadian born young men who grow up full of energy and strength and purpose, no better men, but while they go out to the west, to build up that great country, and make it what it will be, a good country, some reasonable attempt should be made to fill their places by suitable immigrants from some part of Europe. I suggest these things to the House, thinking they will look more thoroughly into them. It is a condition of things that should not exist, and we ought to make some attempt to counteract these things.	*


Clarence Jameson: While the Immigration Bill is under discussion I wish to draw to the attention of the government, and parliament the fact that immigration so far as the Atlantic provinces of Canada are concerned, has in the past, been neglected. The efforts which the government have been putting out for many years past have been entirely directed to the filling up of our western country. With the peopling of that country, and with its development, we in the east have no quarrel whatever. On tbp contrary it is our pride, and it would be a very great source of satisfaction to us to see that country filled up with a desirable class of people, to see it developed and to see it prosper.
At the same time we cannot but recognize that the government have overlooked almost entirely, if not entirely, the needs of the maritime provinces so far as immigration is concerned. Only some few weeks ago, the question of the representation of these provinces in parliament was
discussed in this House. It was then very clearly pointed out that there has been serious loss in the population of the three maritime provinces during the past few years, and the next redistribution will probably result in the loss of two or three, possibly more seats in this House to the maritime provinces. The question i3 one of very vital interest to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The government should make some effort to see that these provinces, which have been described as the long wharfs of this Dominion, should not merely serve the purpose of a wharf, but should retain a certain percentage of the people brought to this country as the result of the government propaganda. We have in the past lost tens, of thousands of people who have gone to the United States. Some of our best and most capable people who have gone there have secured in that country eminent positions. They as a whole have been a credit to the country from which they went and were gladly received by the American nation. But when this government, some time ago placed immigration agents in the eastern states for the purpose of inducing the return of some of those people from the maritime provinces back to Canada, the instructions, so far as I am informed-and I am led to believe by the answer which the Minister of the Interior gave to a question put last year that my information is correct-were given those agents to endeavour to secure the return of those people not to the maritime provinces, but to direct them to western Canada. I do not think that is right. In view of the fact that the maritime provinces have lost very seriously in population, and that their representation is likely to be seriously impaired after the next redistribution owing to the fact it would be, only right and proper that the government should make a special effort, and direct its energies particularly, towards the preserving to the maritime provinces of a percentage at least of the immigrants of the agricultural class brought into Canada through those provinces. For many years the literature which this government has been circulating in Europe has been almost entirely that descriptive of our western country. As I said a few moments ago, we of 5the east have no quarrels with the west, on the contrary the west is a source of great pride to us, but I say that the government have unfairly discriminated against the east in their immigration policy. I trust that in the future a more equitable and proper view of the matter will be taken by the government and that some of the energy of their various representatives in Europe will be directed toward sending immigrants to the maritime provinces and

towards informing them of the advantages offered by those provinces. This in a measure will redeem the injury they have sustained through the serious emigration from our provinces which took place some years ago and which let me add is still continuing, to the eastern states of the American union. I hope also that the government will change the instructions to their agents in the eastern states and instruct them, when they seek to return to this country the people who have left it in years past, not to alone direct their attention to the Canadian west, but make at least an effort, and a fair effort, first of all, to see that these people are reminded of the advantages which the maritime provinces offer them, and endeavour to return to the land of their birth those who left it. In this connection I may refer to the condition which has developed as the result of some regulations recently issued by the Postmaster General with regard to postage upon newspapers published in Canada and going to the United States. Some time ago I put a question on the order paper respecting this matter and the answer I received I confess was somewhat confusing. I placed the question on the order paper at the request of the editor of a local paper in the town where I reside. He told me that up to the time that increased postage was imposed his paper had a large circulation in the United States, and that these papers were taken very largely by people who had formerly been residents of the county of Digby and also by subscribers among American summer tourists who spent part of their time in Digby. The result of the increase in the postage necessitated an advance of 50 per cent in the subscription for the paper, an advance from one dollar to one dollar and fifty cents. The consequence was that he found the circulation of his paper in the United States declined very materially. This, he said, did not represent all the loss. The greatest loss was to the country, through losing touch with the former residents. This applies to all weekly newspapers in the east. The local paper is the best repatriation agent. So long as we are able to place in the hands of people who have left this country our weekly newspapers and they can see what, transpires from week to week in their old home, so long do we retain their interest in the place and we have always a prospect of bringing them back. I have known of many instances where, because of some development reported in the weekly newspapers, people have returned to the country and taken up their abode there again. I consider that the imposition upon the weekly newspapers of that increased postal rate is a very serious detriment and is in no Mr, JAMESON.
way compensated by the paltry increase in postal revenue. I trust that the Postmaster General will remove the charge, as I think it would be for the general benefit of the country, by keeping our people who have gone to the United States in touch with their old homes. The severing of that tie involves the risk of losing them for ever, as residents of the maritime provinces.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I confess that I have not made any preparation for this debate, but there are a few observations I should like to offer in view of the fact that I have given some attention to this question of immigration. I think I am correct in saying that this Bill is similar in principle to the existing Act. This Bill elaborates certain features of the existing law. My opinion is that, so far as the operation of the law is concerned, we can accomplish the same results under it as under this Bill. The principle of this Bill is to keep undesirables out of the country. Therefore, the Bill is good. Any weaknesses are not a question of law, but in the operation of the law. There is a law, ordained some centuries ago, commanding men not to steal. That law has been elaborated from time to time down through the ages, yet it has not wholly restrained people from walking off with their neighbours' goods. If we had only one entrance to this country and instructed the doorkeeper to allow none to enter but the morally and physically sound, we might elaborate the order into pages of law, but unless the man had the discriminating faculty to sift the good from the bad, the law would not be of much effect. I make no criticism of the immigration officials, for those I know appear to be very good men. But I suggest to the minister that he cannot get results under the present system of selecting the outside service. This applies whichever government may be in power. You cannot get the same results as if you placed the selection of these officers under a commission and allowed the superintendent of immigration to pick out men speciallv suitable for that character of woTk. We hear much about the greatness of Canada and of the vast number of people we are going to receive into this country. We certainly are haying some prosperous years. Lean years will come, and the movement, some day, will be from the cities back to the land. If we have confidence in our own statements as to the riches of this country, we must believe that there will be a vast movement of people towards our borders. We ought not to wait until that time comes before beginning to train our immigration service. There is no portion of our public service so necessary or important as this immigration service. The commissioner general of the United States,

in reporting on his men in his report tor the year ending June 30 last, states:
The bureau never fails in its annual reports to call attention to the high estimate it places upon the character and capacity of employees, as a whole and taken individually, and to its appreciation of their loyality, zeal and industry. The work upon which they are engaged is quite different from that performed by many other classes of government employees. They handle human beings, and must, in order to be successful in the highest sense, exhibit the qualities of mind and heart that have no particular place in the handling of books, papers or commodities.
Our present system of securing an outside service, by patronage committees, the recommendation of members of .parliament -I speak regardless of wliat party is in power-must certainly result in putting some men into this immigration service who are better fitted for something else. We must get away from that system if we wish to properly guard our borders. I am making no complaints about the officials; I believe our men are doing good service. But there will be a greater service for them to render when later on they will be called on to inspect vast masses of people who turn towards Canada. When that movement comes it will carry with it the flushings of vice out from the large centres of population. Upon our immigration officials depends our ability to maintain the moral and physical standard of our people. Let that go down, and it is unnecessary for me to say what will happen to this country.
So far, I assume, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) will largely agree with what I have said. If there should be a question of difference between us, it may be on what I am about to say. I believe, that it is the duty of the government to appoint a royal commission to investigate immigration matters. It will cost a little money, of course, but great results will accrue. We are largely creatures of habit; the ordinary business institution gets into a rut; departmental officials are apt to get into a rut. It is desirable to bring in fresh thoughts and ideas and have these matters thoroughly investigated. That idea is not original with me, as the minister knows. The United States government, in 1907, appointed a commission of nine-the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives each appointing three. That commission is doing a most valuable work for the United States. If it has not already done so, it will shortly present its report to congress. I believe the time has arrived when there should be a royal commission to investigate immigration matters in this country, and I certainly think there should be a representative of the labour interest on such a commission.
Another question is that of naturalization. I believe that we make ourselves too
cheap in the making of Canadian ciitzens. Everybody knows that we pay no heed or attention to the matter. If citizenship implies anything in Canada, it must mean ownership. In some European countries, citizenship means burdens. In this country it carries responsibility, but it means also the ownership of something very valu-* able. Are we not offering this citizenship too freely? We all know that the idea of making citizens never occurs to any one until there is an election. And we know,' in the west, at least, the method is this: A foreign-born man is met somewhere; he takes an affidavit before a notary public; this is posted up for a few days; and the man is shortly afterwards certified by the judge as a citizen of this country. The United States have realized that this is a very serious question. In the past few years they have changed the Naturalization Act, and the three-year period no longer exists. At present no man can become a citizen of the United States without being approved by two other citizens who will guarantee his fitness to become a citizen. Perhaps the minister might not agree with me in this matter, but I think it is one that might be profitably looked into by a royal commission, certainly it is of great importance to this country, and I am sure that every hon. gentleman in the House realizes that I am correct in that statement.
The Bill before us has no bearing on the policy of the government. There are some features in connection with the immigration administration that I will refer to in committee, when the minister will be better able to. discuss it with me. We have a branch of our government supplying us with statements as to the estimated population. I am afraid we will discover, when our next census is taken, that the population w'ill not be as great as we have hoped. A short time ago, I put a question on the order paper, and learned that those estimates are based upon the increase of births over deaths as determined at the last census, which increase was 12-7. To that is to be added yearly the increase by immigration as shown by the returns. Well, this country is not like Siberia, where people who come in cannot get out. There is freedom to come in and to go out, and there is a movement of population back and forth. Population is more or less in a fluid state, and there are many people who come in and who go out, of whom no account has been taken in these estimates of population. In the United States, while they have not much information to work upon, they estimate the population that remains at 68 per cent of the entire immigration. I mention this because, if I am correct in the interpretation of the answer that wTas given me, I repeat wre will probably be disappointed when the next census is taken.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: Before you leave the Chair I would like to make a few remarks on this question of immigration The minister has increased the time for deportation from two to three years. Dr. Clark, of the insane hospital in Toronto, is strongly in favour of increasing the period to four years. For myself I can see no reason why there should be any limit fixed to the time within which deportation may take place. If people come into this country who are not able to take care of themselves, who have to be sent to an insane asylum, or other places, to be supported by the public, I do not see why we should retain them at all. There is another provision that I am sorry the minister has not put into his Bill. In the law of the United States they have a clause that when transportation companies bring aliens into the country having a loathsome or dangerous disease, or of weak mind, if the diseases are such as might have been discovered at the port of embarkation, those companies are liable to a fine for each case of $100; and last year, for that offence, the fines amounted to $27,400. In his last report the commissioner recommends that the fine be increased to $200. I think that such a provision should be put into our law also, because there is a temptation on the part of transportation companies to bring people into this country for the purpose of getting the price of their fare across the Atlantic. Then there is another matter which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and that is the advisability of doing away with commissions. I am in favour of cutting out these commissions altogether and of Appropriating the money now spent on that purpose, or as much money as is necessary, to the employment of a doctor on each immigration ship, who shall thoroughly examine every immigrant on the voyage across the Atlantic from whatever country he may come. I think in that way we would be able to exclude people coming to this country who are diseased, or weak minded, or otherwise unfit to become permanent and useful citizens of our country. The question of weaklings and undesirables is troubling the United States a3 well as Canada. There are people in the United States, as stated by the report of the _ Commissioner General, who advocate an increase in the head tax. Some are advocating a literary test, and some are in favour of both. Now, whether that would be advisable,. I am not prepared to say. But one thing is certain, and that is that we ought to get at the best possible means of discovering those undesirables before they embark, and keeping them out. That is a question in which not only we are personally interested, but in which our children and our grandchildren will be still Mr. MAGRATH.
more interested, because they will have to live side by side with these undesirable people who succeed in entering our country. We ought to take every precaution to keep the physical standard of Canadians as high as possible. There are people in the United States who even think that thbre should be a physical test applied to immigrants, and that all males from 16 to 50 should be submitted to a physical examination as severe as the military test. A good many people are sent to. this country by relatives who are anxious to get rid of them. I notice in the reports from the asylum that people have been sent out here, and after they have been deported, their friends in the old country have admitted that they sent them out here for the purpose of getting rid of. them. I could mention a number of such cases. I have here the report issued by the Ontario government for the last year, in which is pointed out quite a number of cases that are very interesting. Here is what it says about deportations:
The work of deporting undesirables has been effectively carried on throughout the year, and with the result that 263 persons were deported.
That is from Ontario alone. There is here a comparative table showing the number of persons deported in the years 1906, 1907 and 1908. In 1908 there were 263 persons deported. In November of that year, 18 insane persons were deported as not coming within the provisions of the Immigration Act. Arrangements have been made by the Ontario government agent at Liverpool for the reception of deported people in their respective homes upon their arrival. So that these eighteen were not deported in the regular way. Private arrangements were made by the government of Ontario whereby these people were sent back to their friends in the old country.
Of these 18, nine were acknowledged as being mentally defective before coming to Canada and two others were acknowledged epileptics, the relatives having no hesitancy in stating that they were sent to this country for the purpose of getting rid of them. . . . Of the 65 insane deported, their average residence in the hospitals for the insane wTas one year and two and a half months. Of 81 criminals deported 15 were committed to the Central prison and 66 to the jails of the province. Of the 117 deported ' as likely to become a public charged 26 had been living on public charity since their arrival in Canada, It were young children of undesirables who wrere deported, and the remainder were deported owing to disease, physical infirmities and immorality. The pecuniary advantage to the provinces by the deportation of the insane persons alone amounts to over $325,000. In addition to the deportations which were mentioned above, the chief of frontier police at Niagara Falls, acting on instructions received from the Attorney General's department, de-

ported to the United States, during the three months ending December 31, 1908, 303 undesirables.
These were people in regard to which nothing was done by the Dominion government. I have a good deal of that kind of information, but perhaps it would not be worth while to go into it at this stage. It was mentioned here to-day that we have a very imperfect way of ascertaining the number, of people that are living in this country. I recollect that the Minister of Finance, in his budget speech, made the statement that there were in this country at the present time 7,450,000 people. I quite understand how he got that information. He, in all probability, got Mr. Blue to prepare the statement for him. That statement was made up from the census of 1901, and every person then in Canada was enumerated in that census. Then the natural increase was added. We all know that large numbers of people from the older provinces went to the Northwest. Train loads of them went. Only the other day
4,000	left Toronto. We know that in 1906 a census was taken in the northwest. Every person who went to that country from the older provinces between 1901 and 1906 was enumerated there as if he had been a newcomer. Then, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance took the reports of the Immigration Department and added the figures which were there given to make the total amount. According to the figures in the United States reports for 1907-8, 58,000 people left Canada and went to the United States. For the year 1908-9, we have the report that 81,000 people left Canada and went to the United States. We also know that the United States keep track of their immigration, and I have some figures here taken from their report. In 1908 there were arrivals in the United States to the number of 924,695. Of these, it was reported that 714,874 left the United States again, leaving a net increase in population of 209,867. Then, in 1908-9, the total arrivals in the United States numbered 944,235 and the departures 400,392, leaving a net increase of 543,843. They do not claim in the United States that more than 68 per cent of the immigrants that go to that country stay there, and I do not see how we can reasonably expect that we will retain any-w'here near the whole of our immigrants because there are attractions in the United States. There are people who come to this country to work during the summer time many of whom go to_ their own countries in -*the fall. Possibly there are a great many reasons why men should stay here and there are a great many why they should not, I presume. However, I am very strong upon the point that we should be very particular about the inspection of immigrants coming to this country, and I think the best way to do that is to have a doc175
tor upon every ship that brings immigrants and have them thoroughly examined on the voyage. Those that are not up to the mark should not be allowed to land. I think that is the best from the humanitarian point of view, because it is cruel to allow people to be brought to this country when we know they will have to be deported and sent back to their own country, after having spent perhaps all the money they have in their attempt to get to this country. We should keep in mind the reports from the asylums and jails. In the province of Ontario we have not quite 20 per cent of a foreign-born population. It is about 17-1 or 17-2 per cent. I mean people born outside of Canada, but in our jails, prisons and insane hospitals, according to the report of Dr. Clark, 40 or 50 per cent of the inmates are foreign-born. That is a state of things that ought not to be, and it did not exist before 1900. The whole trouble has been that we have been too careless in our inspection. Just imagine 7,000 people being landed at one port in one day to be examined. I do not care how many officials you have at such a place, there is no room to examine them properly and do justice. At Ellis Island, New York, they will not allow the number to be examined to exceed 5,000 in any one day, and the equipment that they have there must be better than ours, because their immigration is so much larger than that which we have, and it is necessary for them to have a better equipment. I do not know that I shall continue this dhbate any longer, because as the Bill proceeds we will have an opportunity of speaking on the different clauses. I think it is an improvement on what we have had heretofore, and I think that the government has to some extent listened to the suggestions that have come from time to time from the opposition. If we cannot get quality and quantity it is essential that we shall have quality anyway. I think the minister himself has come to that conclusion and that the immigration work should be carried on upon that principle. I think that Mr. Scott is a real good official. He wrote a letter in 1908 to his assistant over in London, saying that the only kind of people we wanted in this country were experienced farm labourers, farmers who Sre able to take up land, farmers who had money to buy land, or female domestic servants. These were the three kinds that he specified as being desirable, but I notice that the government are very anxious to take credit when they get before a popular audience, excepting it be an audience of workingmen or a trades union, to show the great number that they have brought to this country. But, when they are talking to the trades unions that view of it does not get very much prominence. They



then give more prominence to the class of people that they are paying bonuses for, that is farmers, farm labourers and female domestic servants. I hope that this Bill will be made as perfect as possible, and that a clause will be inserted providing that the transportation companies that bring undesirable people to this country shall be fined and made to take them back, and if necessary made to take a caretaker with them so that they will not suffer.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr. WRIGHT.: I would be very pleased if _ efforts were made to improve the immigration into this country. I have in my hands the report of the Superintendent General of Immigration of the United States, and as it has been freely quoted from I shall not cite many figures. In the opening pages of the report, the commissioner deals with the accuracy of the work done by his department and states that it is as nearly perfect as possible. He refers to the fact that further legislation will be required to keep the undesirable immigrants out of the United States. With all the perfection they have obtained they still find it necessary to recommend that further steps be taken in the way of legislation in order to keep out this class of people. I shall quote his-words:
It is not intended and should not be regarded as a declaration that the bureau is-satisfied that the law, even if made at every point effective of its present intent, would be all-sufficient to control immigration. On the contrary, the bureau believes that the time-has come for the adoption of some measures-more restrictive than any so far enacted That such is the case has been demonstrated' by the evils that have grown out of immigration, particularly in the large cities of the east and middle west, which evils have been accentuated during the past few years of industrial depression. The point at which, perhaps, the


'5527 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
law is especially inadequate is in the class of excluded aliens termed * persons likely to become a public charge/ This standard is not high enough. The alien who becomes a burden on the taxpayers is ultimately undesirable principally for financial reasons. The alien who is barely able, perhaps even with the assistance of private charity, to eke out an existence is continuously undesirable for economic reasons. The presence of such persons in the community tends always to lower the standard of living, of work, and of wages; must have, in an economic sense, a degrading effect. Each community can in time elevate a few such persons to its own level, but its -capacity in this respect is limited, and many >of our communities have been degraded, and many others will be unless some means are found of preventing the immigration of the alien who is barely able to maintain himself.
We will all recognize the difficulty _ of drawing the line with regard to alien immigration. The figures have been given in this report of the total immigration into the United States during the last financial year as 944,235 and I would like to Doint out that of that total immigration three-quarters is what they term immigrant and one-quarter non-immigrant immigration.
They found it necessary to stop a large number at the borders, and of that amount of 944,000, over 400,000 went out of the country almost immediately during the year. Where did they go? We can arrive at no other conclusion than that a large number are trying to make their way across the border into Canada. I have it from the Immigration Department that over 6,700 of these people were stopped at the border last year, and only some 1,300 from all other countries. That would point to the fact that there must be a large number of an undesirable class who manage to get into the United States in some way, and either the American authorities are trying to squeeze them out of the United States, or these undesirables are trying to get into our borders.
I am pleased that a step has been taken to make the regulations more stringent, and I hope the minister will be able to keep out a larger number of these undesirable Immigrants. A year or two ago I said 1 [DOT]did not believe that Canada was getting an excess of immigration from the United States over and above the emigration going there from this country. There is a balance in favour of the United States. AVhether that could be overcome by efforts on our part I do not know, but it is more important that we should get the best class than have a larger immigration, it is especially important that we should keep our young people at home. We ought to direct *our attention to getting the diversified employment necessary to keep our young people* in the country rather than run the chance of getting foreign immigration to replace those who leave us for the United Mr. WEIGHT.
States. If there be no way of preventing that large emigration from this country to the United States, we must do the best we can to get the best class of immigrants to fill their places. What has been the gain of our Northwest Territories has been in a large measure the loss of our provinces in the east. In Ontario we have been losing our best young men. There has been a depreciation in the value of farms in the east, and they are worth less to-day than they were worth twenty years ago. Go into any of the outlying settlements in Ontario a little distance from the larve cities, and you can buy a farm cheaper than you could "at any previous time in my memory. That is caused by the drain to the United States on the one hand, and to our Northwest Territories on the other. We ought to make that up to the eastern provinces; but if 1 understand rightly, the hon. minister is directing his sole attention to filling up the west. I do not object to his giving his attention to the west, but without any effort on the part of this government, the people of the east are flocking out there to get these free lands. In my humble judgment every quarter-section homestead in that country is worth, when the patent is issued,- $1,000, and our government are offering that as a bonus to people from the United States. A large number of these people, when they get their homesteads, sell them as soon as possible. They simply settle in our country as a sneculation, and return to the United States as soon as they can. Some 15,000 of them returned last year and 18,000 of them the year before. That being the case, it would be well to look into the question, and see whether the reeulations misrht not be changed so a3 not to allow these settlers to get their patents so quickly, and in that way keep them in the country.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. EDWARDS.: It seems to me that this government has made the same mistake that was made by the Conservative government; it has been entirely too anxious to bring immigrants into this country. We all recognize that we have a great heritage in the west. But I think what we do not recognize is that that heritage belongs to the people of Canada rather than to the people of any other country. It seems to me that the people of the older provinces. Ontario, Quebec, and the maritime provinces, should have been more considered than they have been in times past in settling the Northwest. There are many parts of Ontario and Quebec, for instance, that, in the days of the lumber kings, gave employment to hundreds of people and that were far more capable of yielding a liveli-

hood to the people than they are to day. In my own county, for instance, there are sections which have been denuded of their timber, yet which are entirely unfit for agriculture. I believe that if 'some of . the money expended in times past in inducing immigrants to come to Canada had been expended in assisting some of these people to take up homes in the Northwest, that money would have been well expended. One of these settlers from the older portions of Ontario, acquainted as they are with our laws, our language and ouit-cus-toms, would be worth more to this country than a whole colony of Doukhobors. I think it would be worth the government's while to take into consideration the people of the older provinces in settling the Northwest, We know that there are people in older Canada who would be only too glad to take up homes in the west and would do so if they had a little encouragement and assistance. But they find, if they make their way to the Northwest with a view to taking up lands, that the lands have been apportioned to peoples from other countries. Their means are limited, and they find themselves unable to cope with the conditions. I am heartily in accordance with the expressions of the hon. member for Lennox (Uriah Wilson). The statistics of our jails and asylums afford ample evidence that not sufficient attention has been paid to the quality of our immigrants. In our anxiety to people the Northwest we have thought rather of quantity, and have paid too little attention to quality. I agree with the hon. member for Lennox in advising that the government should use the utmost care in examining immigrants, not only as to their financial standing and the amount of money they have, but, also, and even more carefully, as to their mental, moral and physical qualities. I reserve any further remarks I may have to make on the subject of immigrate another occasion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
William Stevens Fielding: I propose for the consideration of the committee, that we should rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again at the present sitting of the House. I do this in order that I may have an opportunity to move the House into Committee of Supply to take the necessary steps to give effect to an understanding come to on both sides of the House for the passage of a special supply Bill.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House went into Committee of Supply.
['We shall continue our work of completing the Interim Supply Bill, and then the Minister of the Interior will resume his Bill.\nMotion agreed to and House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.\n, HOUSE OF COMMONS.\nWednesday, March 16, 1910.']
William Stevens Fielding: We have submitted to the House recently some estimates for the
close of the fiscal year which ends on the 31st of this month. I am afraid that the House has been so busiiy occupied with other matters during the last few hours that hon. members, perhaps, have not had an opportunity to give much consideration to these estimates. I realize that if any hon. member desires that the consideration of these estimates should be deferred, I can offer no objection. On the other hand, I would point out that it would be a convenience if, in getting a special vete covering one quarter of the unvoted items for the new year we could take also the estimates -which will wind up the affairs of the current year. I do not think there is much of a controversial nature in these estimates, and I am pretty sure that there is no discussion likely to arise from them which could not take place at a later stage on some item in other estimates. If there be no objection,. I would suggest that we pass these supplementary estimates with the understanding that everything that is contained in them may be debated at a later stage. If there is no objection, I will proceed along that, line.


George Taylor: The leader of the-opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) called me-up by telephone a few minutes ago to say that he would not be here to-night, but that he and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) had made an arrangement to pass one-quarter of the estimates that had not been voted, in order that contractors, civil servants and others might get their pay. This, I understand, is because the Minister of Finance is anxious to get the Bill over to the Senate, as that body purposes adjourning to-morrow until April 6. But the leader of the opposition did not say anything about the supplementary estimates of which the minister has spoken. I do not know of anything controversial in them, but some hon. members on this side are not satisfied to let these supplement-aries go en bloc, but they aTe quite willing* that one-quarter of the main estimates should pass in that way.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend (Mr. Geo. Taylor) is quite right as to the understanding; it did not cover the supplementary estimates. I had a few words about it with the leader of the opposition, but that hon. gentleman told me that he had had no opportunity of looking over these estimates, and could offer no opinion concerning them. They are supplementary estimates for the current year, not for the coming year, and they are necessary in order to make provision for the close of the year.. I would prefer that we should have them voted, but if the hon. member presses his objection, I cannot say that it is unreasonable.


George Taylor: I assume that the minister would be willing to make an arrangement that if there is an item in them which any hon._ member desires t-o discuss,, he should have an opportunity to deal with the matter.


William Stevens Fielding: I give that assurance without qualification.


Haughton Lennox: I understood the Minister of Finance went even further than that -that we could debate any of these items as a matter of course at a later time, be-, cause only one-quarter of each is being voted.


William Stevens Fielding: That is the case with regard to the estimates for the coming year. But, if the committee deals with the supplementary estimates, I would ask that they be voted in full. I quite appreciate, the fact that if we are able to pass these estimates, it is done by general consent, and, if any hon. member desires to discuss any of these items, he should have an opportunity to do so.


George Taylor: Would to-morrow at three o'clock be too late to pass these items? The leader of the opposition would he here then. I would hardly like to consent to their passing in his absence.


Haughton Lennox: I was going to suggest that if we had something to occupy the time for a few minutes, the chief whip1, could probably ring up the leader of the opposition and consult with him.


William Stevens Fielding: For the moment we will not proceed with the supplementary estimates, but we will ask the committee to concur in one-fourth of the unvoted items for the next year, with that understanding. Let me explain that the House, in Committee of Supply, has dealt already with a number of the items of the estimates, and they are now ready, if the House sees fit to concur, to be put in the form of a Supply Bill. But there is a considerable portion of the estimates which the House has not dealt with at all, or if it has considered the matter, the items have been held over for further consideration. We propose now, in Committee of Supply, to vote one-fourth of the remaining items, and these, together with what the committee have already dealt with, shall be gathered into a Supply Bill and sent to the Senate as quickly as possible. That being the understanding, I would move that one-fourth of the items which this committee have not already voted in the estimates for the coming fiscal year, do now pass this committee.


Mr. CEOSBY.: Do these unvoted items cover the civil service for the current year?


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Stevens Fielding: A number of items, including those for the civil service.


Adam Brown Crosby: I ask the question because, in the eastern end of the Dominion, we find that the salaries of civil servants are sometimes held up for a time, particularly the military salaries. When these supplies have been voted, will there be no delay in paying them?


Frederick William Borden: The 25 per cenf^ applies to every branch of the servicer


William Stevens Fielding: I have here all the items in detail, but I suspect that the House will not wish me to read them. So we will rely upon the clerks of the House to see that they give effect to the motion that is now made, that one-fourth of these items shall he passed and put into the form of a Supply Bill. I move that the committee rise and report the resolution.


Mr. W. H. SHAEPE.: Some time ago the Minister of Bailways and Canals promised to put a certain amount in the estimates for this year to start the building of the Hudson Bay railway. Has the government decided yet what amount to put in the estimates for that purpose?


William Stevens Fielding: That will be for the estimates for the coming year, not for the current year. It will have to come in the supplementary estimates for the coming year, and I am not in a position to make any statement concerning these until they are ready to be submitted to the House.


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

[Stage Direction]
House went into Committee on Bill (No. 102) respecting immigration.
On section 1.
Glenlyon Campbell: I would like to ask the Minister of the Interior to define the meaning of his remark before six o'clock, when, in answer to a question I preferred to him with regard to the Doukhobors, he said that his Act covered the immigration of Doukhobors, as well as my other friends.


Frank Oliver: I have no explanation to make, the words, I think, are perfectly clear, and I cannot see that my hon. friend can take any objection to them.


Glenlyon Campbell: I want to know what the hon. gentleman meant. I want him to explain to whom he refers as my other friends, in speaking of the Doukhobors.


Frank Oliver: I said the Act applied to all the friends of my hon. friend. I have no explanation to offer. The Act does- apply to every person who comes

under its operation whether they are friends of myself I want to know what he means.


Glenlyon Campbell: The minister is begging the question. His words were that the intention was to introduce an Act to bring out Doukhobors as well as other friends of myself. I want to know what he means.


Frank Oliver: Well, I shall have to take issue with my hon. friend. I did not say that the Act contemplated the bringing out of Doukhobors, or that it had anything to do with Doukhobors, more than with anybody else.


Glenlyon Campbell: I may have misquoted him as to bringing out Doukhobors, but that was the effect of the words, to bring out Doukhobors as well as other friends of his hon. friend, meaning myself. I wrote down the words when he used them, and I want to know what he means.


Frank Oliver: Well, he means exactly what he says, as he generally does.


Glenlyon Campbell: I want the hon. gentleman to make himself clear. I understand the English language nearly as well as he does, and I understood from what he said that he meant to convey an imputation on me in some way. If he did, I throw it back in his teeth, absolutely and at all times.


Frank Oliver: I beg to apologize for the Doukhobors.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am surprised that an hon. gentleman who has, from time to time, got up in this House and decried people who are decent citizens of this country, as I pretend to be, Mr. Speaker, as I strive to be, and I take back water from no man, Grit or Tory, who ever lived in the aspiration to be a decent and honourable citizen of this country. When he makes a statement of that kind I hold it is an insult and if it were anywhere else than on the floor of this House I would tell him in very plain language-in that language that of all men in this House he is supposed to be a past master of- that there is no justification whatever for it. He is protected by the rules of this House when he throws an insult like that across the floor. There is no Liberal in this House, be he the smallest or the biggest man, that ever can say to me, with truth that I have done anything else towards him than show him the courtesy that one gentleman owes to another.	That is my asipration and I want
to tell you that evidently that is not the aspiration of the minister, or if it is his aspiration, he does not know in the slightest degree how to walk up to it. He does not know the courtesy that one
gentleman should show to another, when he throws in my teeth such words as those which he uttered to-night. He says that he owes an apology to the Doukhobors. Does he owe an apology to the poor men, women and children, who paraded through Saskatchewan in the garb that God gave them when they were bom, a most indecent horde of people? Yet, he apologized to them because I have brought up in this House something in regard to them. If ever I felt like apologizing for a Liberal or a Liberal minister for his want of courtesy in this House I feel like it now. I think it is shameful, and I think that if the minister will only pause to consider a moment he will realize that he has gone beyond the bounds of what is parliamentary and beyond the bounds of the courtesy which one hon. gentleman owes to another. He owes me a personal apology and I expect to get it-I do not care whether it is written or verbal.


Haughton Lennox: There is such a thing as a person sacrificing too much for the sake of being smart, and if an illustration of that is wanted in this House we have a very apt one at this time. The minister had every opportunity of doing what was honourable and square by my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell). The hon. member repeated his question a great many times. He had a good right to repeat the question, because the remark made before we rose at six o'clock was open to a very uncomplimentary construction. Instead of making amends, as I anticipated, the hon. gentleman would and which was, I submit, what any hon. member of this House should have done, and particularly u minister of the Crown who ought to be an example of decorum and propriety, instead of availing himself of the opportunity of saying frankly that he did not intend to be discourteous or uncomplimentary and that he had no ground for saying anything discourteous or uncomplimentary about the hon. member for Dauphin, he plays upon words for some time and in the end becomes very clever and tells the hon. gentleman that he owes an apology to the Doukhobors. If he owes an apology to anybody he owes it to this House for his conduct as a minister of the Crown. If he owes an apology it is not to the Doukhobors but it is to the honest, respectable people or Canada for bringing in a horde such as he has brought at the expense of Canada and to the great detriment of the future of this country. As I have had a fair amount of respect for the Minister of the Interior, and as I never had any occasion to complain of him in reference to any former matter of this kind, I regret very much indeed that he has seen fit to so degrade the hon. position

he occupies and has descended to this petty, miserable-	,


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


An hon. MEMBER.: Chair.


Mr. TALBOT.: Mr. Chairman, I rise tc a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if the hon. gentleman has any right to tell any minister of the Crown that he has degraded himself either in word or action.


Haughton Lennox: A minister ot the Crown has greater opportunities of degrading himself than an ordinary member.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) has the right to explain his words before I make a ruling. I hope the hon. gentleman will at this time confine himself to that explanation.


Haughton Lennox: I say that a minister of the Crown can more readily degrade himself than an ordinary member, and if you rule that I have to modify the words, I will modify them or withdraw them, but I will not do so otherwise.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: As I understood the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) he had not completed his sentence, but I think he used the words that the minister had so far degraded his position-


Haughton Lennox: As a minister of the Crown.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, -as a minister of the Crown, and that he had proceeded a little farther. I regret the strength of the expression and I would ask the hon. gentleman to modify it.


Haughton Lennox: I will be very pleased to withdraw the statement on the ruling of the Chair, although I would not otherwise have done so. I withdraw it absolutely and unreservedly by reason of the ruling of the Chair, but I would say that in so far as I can go in describing my very great regret that any person who occupies the distinguished position in the service of Canada, one to which we would like to look with pride, I regret very much that the hon. member has forgotten the fundamental duty he owes to this House and the people of Canada as he has forgotten and ignored it to-night.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall section 1 be adopted?


Glenlyon Campbell: I asked some questions of the Minister of the Interior before Mr. LENNOX.
six o'clock, and I was told that it would be much better to ask these questions when this Bill came up in Committee of the Whole House. The first question I asked was in regard to the cost of bringing the Doukhobors into this country. I would like to repeat the question now.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry that I have not had the opportunity of getting the information. My hon. friend will understand that it is not possible to carry in a person's mind a series of questions that might be asked across the floor, and it is usual, I think, to depend upon 'Hansard' for the question so that a proper answer may be secured. 1 can assure my hon. friend that the questions he asked will receive everv attention, but I would ask to have the opportunity of getting them from 'Hansard' in order that I may be sure that I am giving the answer that is called for.


Glenlyon Campbell: I asked another question, and I might say that in the answer that I got from the minister just now I was somewhat surprised to be termed the hon. member for Dauphin, remembering the remarks that proceeded from him a few minutes ago. I asked if this Bill applies to the Doukhobors and their immigration and importation into this country. I would like an answer to that.


Frank Oliver: Yes, unquestionably.


Glenlyon Campbell: Might I ask what is the intention of the government in regard to the numbers of Doukhobors that are to be imported? I have seen it stated in the papers to be in the neighbourhood of 8,000. What is the policy of the government with regard to the settlement of these people in view of the government's experience with them in the past? Do they mean to segregate them or do they mean to use them as they use every other class of immigrants-scatter them throughout the country?


Frank Oliver: There was a rumour some time ago in the papers that there was a possibility of further immigration of Doukhobors from Russia to the Northwest. On seeing that rumour, I made such inquiry as was possible, and found as far as I was able to find that there was no foundation for that rumour. I may sav that the provisions of the Bill are intended to meet the need of excluding undesirable people, and should the Doukhobors come within the exclusion provisions of the Bill they would necessarily be excluded.


William Cameron Edwards: Who is going to determine that?


Frank Oliver: The officers of the government, when the matter comes up for consideration.


William Cameron Edwards: Under your direction?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: Is the minister in a position to say now whether he considers these Doukhobors a desirable class of people or not?


Frank Oliver: The government is in a position to know whether the Doukhobors who are now in Canada are a desirable class of people or not, and on that point I may say that some of them may fairly be considered desirable, and some of them may just as fairly be considered undesirable. I understand that there are differences of sect among the Doukhobors. Some of them hold more extreme views than others. As to those who are in Russia, I do not know whether they hold the views of those who are in Canada or not. I presume that they do not, otherwise they would have come to Canada along with those who are here now. The fact that they did not come indicates to me that they hold somewhat different views. What those views are I do not know, but if we had to decide we would get the information and would judge accordingly. If the views of any of those who are in Russia, if there are any there, are in accord with the views of a certain portion of the Doukhobors who are in Canada, they would certainly be excluded under the provisions of the Act as it is at present, and under the policy under which that Act is administered.


John Dowsley Reid: What became of those Doukhobors who were at Port Arthur, and did the government pay $5 a head for bringing them into this country.


Frank Oliver: I believe that they are a part of the general immigration of Doukhobors, and in respect of those who were alive at the time there was a payment of $5 a head.


John Dowsley Reid: Where are they now? They were all crazy the last time I saw them a Port Arthur.


Frank Oliver: Some of them are dead, some in jail, some are back at their original village, and some are scattered elsewhere.


John Dowsley Reid: Then we paid $5 a head to bring them out here to keep them in jail? Is that what we are to understand?


Frank Oliver: I am giving the facts. The government did pay $5 a head, I understand, and some of these people either are or were in jail as a result of their escapade at Port Arthur.


George Taylor: To what kind of an examination will the minister subject those Doukhobors that he intends importing into this country-a medical examination? Will that show what their views are on religious questions, or will he have to
extract their brains, and put them under a microscopic examination? I do not see how he can ascertain by any examination what their views are so as to say whether they are desirable or not.


Frank Oliver: The Bill makes provision for the exclusion of people who are physically, mentally or morally unfit or undesirable. I think it would be fair to say that the party of Doukhobors who were at Port Arthur would come under one of these classifications, and if those who are in Russia are of the same mind, they would come under the same classification. I may, however, take exception to the words of my hon. friend when he speaks of Doukhobors that this government intends to bring from Russia. I can assure him that the government do not intend to bring Doukhobors from Russia or anybody from anywhere. If Doukhobors come from Russia or anybody comes from anywhere, they will have to pass the conditions of the immigration law before they are admitted to Canada.


Adam Brown Crosby: As a junior member of this parliament I have been somewhat surprised, and for my future conduct, if I should remain in parliament, I want to understand where we are in regard to a discussion which took place to-night. The hon. Minister of the Interior, apologized to the Doukhobors for having mentioned the name of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) in connection with the Doukhobors, and when the hon. member for Dauphin addressed the House with regard to the matter, I understood the Minister of Finance to sav to him, ' be careful.' But, when the Minister of Finance, who I understand to be leading this House, heard that statement from the Minister of the Interior, he did not ask him to be careful. I want to know whether or not that is parliamentary language, or whether it is to be taken as an example to the jun-for members of this House as to how they are to govern themselves in addressing this House. I want to know if the hon. Minister of the Interior has not yet something to do or to explain so far as the hon. member for Dauphin is concerned. We on this side of the House have the highest regard and resnect for the hon. member for Dauphin, and I am sure I am not going too far when I say that hon. members on the other side have the same regard for that hon. gentleman, and I feel confident that the hon. Minister of the Interior, knowing the hon. member for Dauphin perhaps much better than I do, has the same regard for him, even though they may not have the same political views. Therefore, before we go any further in discussing the matter before the committee, I would like this matter to be cleared up, because I feel, as a junior member of par-

Lament that the impression made by it on my mind will have a great deal to do with my conduct in future in addressing this House, either in Committee of the Whole ' or with the Speaker in the chair.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I do not understand that the hon. gentleman has raised a point of order, and it would be, of *course, too late now to raise it on the point he has mentioned. I will say though, on the appeal of the hon. member, that I very much regret personal recrimination in the House. I was cognizant of the remark made by the Minister of the Interior. It will not do for me to comment on it. Had I felt that it distinctly contravened any rule of the House to which I could point, I would have called it to order. It was a class of expression that might convey perhaps an unkindly thought to the member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell), and yet I did not feel that it was of that class that I could call out of order.


George Taylor: A western expression.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I would say though, having been appealed to by the member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) that it is my desire to hold the debates in this House clear of personal recrimination. I hope that in any efforts I make in the future in that way I will get the support of the1 House, and if so, the debates will reach a higher standard than I feel they have recently been on.


Adam Brown Crosby: I fear I misunderstood the minister, and if the minister will be good enough to set the matter right, I feel it will make us all feel happier and we can go on better. I ask this for my guidance. Like every other member, I have a tendency and desire to be courteous and fair to the ministers of the Crown, but at the same time I do look for strong lessons in courtesy and kindliness, and even sympathy, from ministers of the Crown to members of the House. I hope the minister will in a few'words set this at rest and let us go on.


Mr. STAPLES.: I think the member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) is taking good ground when he raises this question, and I wasi hoping the Minister of the Interior would retract the statement he threw across the House to the member for Dauphin. The minister is a westerner, and probably outside of this House he would be in the habit of using western expressions that would not be thought, anything of in the west. I think as a member of this House, it was a dirty slur he cast when he made the statement that he apologized to the Douk-hobors because he had classified the member for Dauphin with them. I have known the member for Dauphin for a great many years, and orftside of his western spirit, Mr. CROSBY.
which is very noticeable, he is the last man who would cast a slur that would in any way reflect on the character of an hon. member of this House. I do not believe it is yet too late to raise the point of order, and I ask the minister to retract the statement he made reflecting on the character and associates of the member for Dauphin. There is no doubt the Minister of the Interior had in his mind, he has admitted tonight when he made that statement before six o'clock, we who know the member for Dauphin, and he who knows him, knows what he had in his mind when he made the statement across the floor that his Bill, which is now before us for discussion,1 was wide enough for the member for Dauphin and all his relatives to come in' on. *


Frank Oliver: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, I did not say relatives.


William D. Staples: Until the minister acts the man and withdraws what he said, I for one do not intend clause 1 to pass.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William D. Staples: If an hon. member on this side made the same statement as the Minister of the Interior made, you would rise to a man, and ask him to retract, but if an hon. member on this side had made that statement we as his colleagues would go to him, and ask him for the dignity of this House to retract it. Hon. gentlemen opposite when a minister casts a slur on a member on this side pound their desks. If the minister will say he did not mean anything more, if he will explain what he did mean or retract the words that in his opinion were offensive, we will proceed with the business of the House.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend says he knows what was in my mind when I replied to the hon. member for Dauphin.


William D. Staples: I said I had an opinion of what was in your mind.


Frank Oliver: And wanted me to apologize for that which he thought was in my mind. Before I apologize I will ask him to tell the House what he thinks was in my mind so I will know what I am apologizing for.


Glenlyon Campbell: I have no desire to be a football between my Liberal friends and my own partisans in a question of this kind. I feel that the Minister of the Interior was acting a part far beneath the dignity of his office when he threw the slur across at me which he did throw, but for that reason if he has not the manliness and the gentlemanliness to get up and withdraw the sentiment that he put into my mind, I have no desire, and I would ask my hon. friends on this side to take no

further notice, because a man of that kind is absolutely beneath contempt.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Chairman


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I am afraid the closing words of the member for Dauphin are not in order, and I would prefer that he withdrew them.


Glenlyon Campbell: I have no desire, as I think you know, at any time to contravene the rules of this House, but you must know, from what you said a few moments ago you must feel, that the provocation has been very great, and that while my words are not parliamentary they are absolutely just, but being unparliamentary I must withdraw them on your ruling.


Frank Oliver: I would like to say that there' seems to be some misunderstanding on the part of mv hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples) as to what was in my mind when I answered my hon. friend from Dauphin. I cannot tell what he thinks was in my mind. I presume he thinks it was something that was very bad.


William Cameron Edwards: Withdraw your words and never mind what was in your mind.


Frank Oliver: I will not withdraw any words at the call of any bully inside or outside the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


William Cameron Edwards: As I was speaking before the Minister of the Interior got up 1 infer that his word ' bully,' refers to me, and I ask him to withdraw it unreservedly.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the minister has referred to any member as a 'bully,' of course it would be unparliamentary, and'I ask him to withdraw.


Frank Oliver: If my hon. friend from Frontenac considers that I applied the word to him


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Frank Oliver: Then I certainly will take it back.


John Dowsley Reid: I object to the minister taking it back as applied to only one member


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Dowsley Reid: 1 am surprised that you as Chairman of this committee will allow the minister to apply that word to any member on this side of the House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have risen to order, and the hon. member must resume his seat. While I will endeavour to do justice to every member of the House I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss the ruling at the present time.


John Dowsley Reid: Let me say that the hon. minister applied the word ' bully to a member of this House, and so far as your ruling, Sir, is concerned, I have a right to appeal, and I shall do so.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman who used the term * bully has withdrawn it. The hon. member for Frontenac raised the point that he was the one to whom that epithet was intended to apply, and the epithet having been withdrawn in regard to him, I did not understand that any other member was referred to, and the rules of the House do not protect any one who is not a member.


William Cameron Edwards: The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) said that if I thought he applied the word to me, thereby leaving the inference that he meant it to apply to more than myself, he withdrew it. I took it up so far as I was concerned, and other gentlemen have the same right.


Frank Oliver: In order to ease the strain, I want to say that if any hon. gentleman considers that I applied the word to him, I beg to withdraw it and to say that I do not consider any of them bullies. I wish to say further that, so far as my attitude is concerned, I have always desired to be courteous to every hon. member and transact business with due regard to the dignity of the House and the respect due by one man to another, whether in the House or out of it. When the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) questioned me with regard to the Bill before six o'clock, I replied to him in the spirit in which, as I judged, he had asked the question. When he reverted to the matter after eight o'clock, he seemed to consider that I had attached some ill-meaning to the words, or intended to convey an insult to him, ai)d I could not understand what was in his mind. As far as I can judge, there must have been something in his mind that was not in mine, judging by the remarks of the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples); and while I would like every one to understand that I wish to treat every one with all courtesy, I would like also every one to understand that they can always get their change when they come to me. But I do want the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) to understand that I had no intention of conveying any slur upon him, either as a man or member of the House, or in any way, shape or manner.


Glenlyon Campbell: I think that what the Minister of the Interior says, though at a late date, covers the question; and if I was perhaps somewhat bitter in some words I used since the inception of this debate, I do him the same courtesy as he has done me, and beg to withdraw them in so far as they hurt his feelings. To go

on with this matter, before we pass clause; 1, I think -it would be desirable for the Minister of the Interior to tell us what proportion of good settlers there were among the Doukhobors. He has told us about some bad ones, those that are in asylums or in jail or dead, and I would like to have some idea what the proportion of good settlers was.	-


Frank Oliver: I have not the information at hand. There is, of course, a difference in degree even among the good settlers.


Glenlyon Campbell: I might make it perhaps a little easier for the minister to reply if I put it in this way. How many Doukhobors who settled in Saskatchewan and other parts have proved upon their homesteads and become decent, civilized citizens and good settlers?


Frank Oliver: As the hon. gentleman now asks the question, it would amount to this: How many Doukhobors have left the community and become individual settlers? I cannot give the actual figures, but I think in the neighbourhood of one-quarter of the total number. Of those who remain in the community, while they are not to be classed as the most desirable settlers, I do not think that they are as good as those who work individually. They are industrious, thrifty, law-abiding and have added very considerable to the wealth of the country, and to that extent are good settlers, but I do not think that those who continue to live in community are as good as those who have gone out on their homesteads and proved up to them, as a certain proportion have done.


Glenlyon Campbell: We have been told by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that in the neighbourhood of $45,000 to $50,000 has been spent by the government in bringing these people out to this country, only one-quarter of whom, according to the minister, have proved good settlers. I realize, of course, that the minister is not perhaps altogether to blame for the bringing _out of these people, but I would ask him what they cost this country since they came out? What has it cost Canada to send out the police and special trains and to take care of those people when on these famous pilgrimages of which my hon. friend knows, which were an insult to the decent Canadian men, women and children throughout the country through which they paraded. Those pets of the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), when they paraded in all their hakedness, were the most indecent exhibition we have ever seen in the Canadian west, not even excepting the poor ignorant aborigines. And these people were brought out as good settlers by this government, and the government took credit to them-Mr. CAMPBELL.
selves for bringing them to Canada. I would like to know approximately what it cost to semi-civilize these people and teach them some morality and semi-decency.


Frank Oliver: I cannot give the information off-hand, but I shall use my endeavours to get it as nearly as possible. I hope to be able to place it before the House at a later date. As evidence that these people are not altogether undesirables, I may mention that a number have bought lands in British Columbia at very high prices and have formed colonies in two or three of the valleys there and are establishing fruit farms. I do not say that the fact that they have been able to accumulate wealth and that they have been large producers of wealth alone makes them desirable citizens. But I would not like the House to understand that they are without qualities that would entitle them to consideration. While I am speaking on this subject, I may say that it is quite a mistake to suppose that these people are of inferior mentality any more than they are inferior in physique to other people.


William Henry Sharpe: To which class does the minister refer?


Frank Oliver: We speak of the people of Ontario as a very superior class as they are, but there are undesirable people in Ontario. So that, out of 8,000 Doukhobors, a very considerable portion of them are, I say, not inferior in either mentality or physique to other people. There is a minority of them who are certainly inferior, so much so as to be classed as entirely undesirable.


William Henry Sharpe: The minister has time and again spoken of these people as being divided into two classes. Of course, we all admit that some of them are fairly good settlers. If we could be sure of getting only that kind, I do not think there are many in western Canada who would object to more of them coming. But what we do object to is the government bringing into our decent settlements such people as were described by my hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) a few minutes ago. Would it be possible, under this new Bill, to prevent this undesirable class from coming into Canada? If not, I would advise the minister to have these people settle in Ottawa in all their native glory and in all their nakedness. Then the members of parliament from one end of Canada to the other would see the kind of people who have been sent into western Canada. As showing the wide range from which our immigrants are drawn, I may say that there are 49 different languages spoken in Winnipeg alone. There is no doubt that this foreign immigration are

not only filling our jails and asylums in western Canada, but, as shown by the returns brought down, the asylums and jails of Ontario as well. Will the minister tell me whether it is possible for these undesirables, such as he has described, to come into Canada under this new Bill?


John Gillanders Turriff: There has been a good deal of unfair criticism of the Doukhobors this evening. It is a good many years since these people came into Canada. They were brought in by the government and they were generally thought to be a good class of people. So far as my observation goes, the great majority of the Doukhobors are as good a class of settlers, almost, as you get from any other country. One great point against them, in my judgment, is that they wish to live in communities. But they are gradually breaking away from that. As the minister has pointed out, there is a minority who are practically insane.


Uriah Wilson: This government brought them in.


John Gillanders Turriff: There are people among other classes who go crazy and have to be put in asylums. I believe that you can easily find other classes who have entailed more expense from the Justice Department than has been spent in looking after the small proportion of Doukhobors who needed looking after, and who, in my judgment, are insane. It sometimes costs the government a great deal to punish a criminal. It may take $25,000 to capture, convict and punish a murderer. I have in mind one such case in which it cost the government $100,000 to execute justice. Will you say that the people who came from the same country as that murderer are an undesirable class because of this man's crime? Are the Doukhobors all to be classed as bad settlers because some of them have practically gone insane and acted in a reprehensible manner? There is much criticism of the government for bringing these people into the country, but when they were brought in hon. members opposite did not offer a word of criticism.


Uriah Wilson: If the hon. member will allow me, I recollect very distinctly when the present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) and myself criticised that action very freely.


John Gillanders Turriff: I was going to remark -if my hon. friend had waited-that the chief criticism of that action came from my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, who was then a private member of the House, and not from hon. members opposite.


William Henry Sharpe: We were not here.


John Gillanders Turriff: Further, the predecessors of this government were those who began bringing in the people who are now said to be so undesirable.


William Cameron Edwards: What class?


John Gillanders Turriff: If the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) will remain quiet, he will get further ahead.


William Cameron Edwards: Does the hon. member object to a question?


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, until I get through.


William Cameron Edwards: I have no wish to interrupt.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is easy to criticise, because some of the people who come to Canada have not turned out well. But if you are going to condemn all the people from a given country because some of them turn out badly, where will you get your immigration?


William Henry Sharpe: I do not wish to be misunderstood. The hon. gentleman has interpreted my words as condemning the whole crowd of Doukhobors. A moment ago when the minister said that he put them into two classes, a good class and a class that was no good, I said distinctly that a part of them were all right.


John Gillanders Turriff: I accept the hon. gentleman's view of the matter, and I quite agree that a considerable part of them are all right, and a part of them are not right. But we have them in the country, and we must deal with them as we find them. Not many more Doukhobors will come in, and I think I have heard it stated that about all that class of people in Russia have now come into Canada. But if any more of them do come in, under our present law, and more especially under the law it is now proposed to amend, we would not only be able to stop them from coming in, but if they are found to be undesirable we can deport them at any time during three years after their arrival. I have seen a statement made by one of the ministers of the Ontario government that the jails and asylums of the province were being filled with undesirables from foreign countries, and that although it was within the power of any municipality in which one of those undesirables was found, _to deport him, in a great many cases it had not been done. The municipality had only to notify the Department of the Interior and the individual would be deported, but in a great many cases no such step had been taken by the municipality. I am satisfied that the government do not wish to bring in any class of people who live in communities. We want the people who come into this country to adopt Canadian ways of living. Even' English speaking people

coining into Canada, if they live in communities, would not toe the class that we desire. I think this Bill will go a long way towards making it possible to handle the immigration question better than we have handled it in the past, and it will better enable us to keep -out undesirables.


Glenlyon Campbell: The Minister of Interior referred to these people as being not inferior in mentality or physique to other races who form the people of Canada, and he said that some 25 per cent of them had proved to be good settlers. But I hold that when he is bringing in a Bill with regard to immigration it is up to him to provide that no immigrant, no matter how good his physique or his mentality, shall be allowed to come into this country as a settler unless he is prepared to subscribe to the oath of allegiance and become a Canadian first as we all do who form the great Canadian people. The minister has had to admit that up to date only a small percentage of Doukhobors have subscribed to the oath of allegiance. For that reason alone. I say they are bad settlers, regardless of their physique or menahty. I think we should pass a law that no man should be allowed to reside in this country unless he is prepared to become a Canadian citizen in the fullest meaning of the word, and unless he is prepared to take up arms in defence of the flag that waves over him. I would suggest that a clause be put in the Bill to that effect.


William Henry Sharpe: The minister has divided the Doukhobors into two classes. Will it be possible, under the new Bill, to keep an undesirable Doukhobor out of the country? _


Frank Oliver: If they were recognized as being of the class that my hon. friend mentions, of course they would be shut out under the Bill. But having come in without being recognized as undesirable, if they were found to be undesirable within three years afterwards, they could be deported to the country from whence they came. It might be difficult to distinguish between one who was mentally weak and one who was sound. But if their fanaticism broke out within three years after their coming into the country, under this Bill they could be deported. In regard to what the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) said, I quite agree with him that men who decline to take the oath of allegiance are undesirable. I am satisfied that had the government been aware, when they entered into negotiations for bringing these people out to Canada that such was their religion, certainly no such arrangement would have been entered into.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Could the minister . tell us about what proportion of the Doukhobors have taken the oath?


John Gillanders Turriff: 


Frank Oliver: I think about 25 per cent of the adult males.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I suppose that the reason why they left their homesteads in the west and removed into British Columbia was because they refused to take the oath of allegiance.


Frank Oliver: No, they were not on homesteads, they were living in a community, and refused to take their lands in severalty. We have no means of giving land to people except in severalty, and as they would not take their land on those conditions, they decided to remove to British Columbia where they 'would be allowed to retain their communal system.


Mr. ROCHE.: In connection with their Port Arthur pilgrimage, I understand that the government of Saskatchewan took issue with the Dominion government in reference to the payment of the expenses of that pilgrimage, and that some correspondence passed between the two governments as to which government should bear the expenditure.


Frank Oliver: I cannot give an absolutely sure answer, but my impression is that the whole of the expenditures, after the return of the Doukhobors to the province of Saskatchewan, was borne by the government of Saskatchewan.


William Roche: That was borne by the province.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


William Roche: Who paid the expense in connection with Port Arthur?


Frank Oliver: I do not know, but I suppose the Ontario government. I could not say.


Mr. HERRON.: Have the government any requests from any other class of settlers to come in under the Act referred to by the hon. member for Dauphin; that is to avoid military service, and if so has the government any intention of making any such arrangement with any other classs of people? I hope not.


Frank Oliver: At the present time, in so far as I am entitled to speak on behalf of the government in declaring its policy on immigration, the government has consistently declined to enter into any proposition for admitting settlers to Canada during recent years on any terms other than those that are common to citizens of Canada. We never recognize any special privilege to any class of people from any part of the world.


John Herron: Are you still permitting settlers to settle in communities?


Frank Oliver: No, there was provision in the Dominion Lands Act to allow pec-

pie 'to settle in hamlets. That provision was abolished by the new Act of 1908, and we have no arrangement now whereby people can occupy government lands except under the terms set down in the Homestead Act.


Mr. A. HAGGART.: Since the discussion has arisen between the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) on this side of the House, and the hon. the minister, and the hon. member for Assinaboia (Mr. Turriff) on the other side, as to the deportation of undesirables, I desire to say that I cannot agree with the construction placed upon the Act as it is before us in reference to those who are prohibited, and those who may be deported. The word,
' undesirable ' would not be a proper term in an Act like this. The Act provides for a board of inquiry, but it would be a very serious matter to allow that board of inquiry to adjudicate upon a person, or a class of persons, and to determine as to whether they were undesirable or not. By referring to section 3 of the Act it will be seen that the following are placed among the prohibited classes:
(a) idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane within five years previous.
I doubt very much if on a fair and proper construction of the Act, Doukhobors would come within that definition, and section 40, which provides for deportation, also specifically names a different class of persons who may be deported at the expiration of five years. When these clauses come up I have no doubt that with the assistance of the Minister of Justice we may be able to get some more suitable expression that would meet the views which were set forth by the hon. member for Lisgar, and the hon. member for Dauphin, and something which would also meet what appears to be the views of the majority of the members of this House. The whole subject matter can be properly discussed under these sections.


Uriah Wilson: I have a vivid recollection of the debates that took place in this House on several occasions in reference to the Doukhobors. I have always been opposed to giving any class of immigrants any special privileges. I recollect that when the Mormons wanted to settle in Canada, and when they applied to Sir John Macdonald's government to know if they could bring with them their peculiar institutions-for instance that with regard to their plurality of wives-Sir John said: If you want to come into our country you will have to abide by the laws of our country. When the Doukhobors were brought into this country it was under a special arrangement that was made by Mr. W. T. R. Preston. Mr. Sifton was Minister of the Interior. They had been trying for a good while to make a good showing with regard to immigration, and to get as large a number of people as possible to come into this country. I have no doubt that there were special inducements held out to the Doukhobors because when they had an interview with the present Minister of the Interior, they claimed that they had a right, under the agreement that was made with them, to live in communities, and that their special settlement duties could be performed in that way. They were also to be freed from the performance of military duty. I think all these things were a mistake. In addition to that instead of giving the immigration agents a commission on these people the government paid the amount directly to the Doukhobors, and they got $5 per head which amounted to something over $36,000. Then, when they arrived in this country we advanced them $20,000 to keep them from starving to death. We were told by the then deputy Minister of the Interior, who appeared before the Agricultural Committee many times that we had good security for the money that was loaned them, because we had a lien upon their land.- But it turned out afterwards that they had no land, because they would not comply with the laws of the country. But, there were more serious objections than any of these. The head man of the Doukhobors, who was living in Russia, wrote tc this country that any man who could not agree with his wife might put her away and take another wife to himself, but he must be careful not to marry her, because if he did they would put him in jail. We do not want any communities of that kind. We want people who will abide by our laws, rr we do not want them at all. I am very strong on the point that we should insist upon any person being subject to our laws before he is allowed to put his foot on our soil.


William Cameron Edwards: Do I understand that the first Doukhobors came here subsequent to 1896?


Uriah Wilson: Yes, when Mr. Sifton was Minister of the Interior, and Mr. W. T. R. Preston was commissioner or inspector of immigration in London.


Frank Oliver: In reply to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. A. Haggart), if he will turn to page 4, section 38, subsection (c). I think he will find a clause that will enable us to meet the case.


John Herron: Are the children and the descendents of the Doukhobors exempt from military service under that agreement? Does it extend from generation to generation?


Frank Oliver: Yes, it does. It is not by a special agreement with the Doukhobors,

however; it is, as I understand it, a law of Canada that ajnan who by reason of his religion objects to military service is not compelled to do military service. There was no exception made in the case of the Doukhobors, but they being a class of people who would be able to avail themselves of that privilege under our law' w7e still arranged for them to be brought to this country. Everybody knows that the Quakers and the Mennonites are exempt from military service under the general law of Canada.


William Henry Sharpe: There are a great many Mennonites in my constituency. 1 have about 1,000 voters of that class. We cannot adopt legislation at the present time for those who have come in the past, but we can take precautions in connection with those who are going to come in the future. I would like to ask the minister if there is anything in this Bill-I cannot see it-whereby these immigrants that come in future will have to take the oath of allegiance, and be required to take up arms and fight for our country. If they are going to receive the benefit why not make them take some of the responsibility? We give them all the cream and take up the burden ourselves. I do not think it is right. If they come to settle, and take part in the welfare of this country they should stand by the country from start to finish. In the time of prosperity they reap the benefit, while in the time of war and trouble they sit back in their chairs and say, fight your own battles. I do not think that is right. If thev are to have a part in our inheritance, they should help us to defend it. I would like to ask the minister if there is anything in this Bill that will cover that point. Now, I wish to say a word in regard to the way in which immigrants are used when they arrive in Winnipeg. In that city we have a very fine immigrant shed, and when foreigners come there, it matters not where they come from, they are taken in hand by our immigrant agents, and are used, as the saying is like princes; but an Englishman, an Irishman, a Scotchman or a Canadian farmer who goes to Winnipeg is absolutely shut out of the immigrant shed, and is told to go and look after himself. I do not think this is right. I think it is our duty to look after our own first, and after the others afterwards. I have heard a great many complaints of this kind myself in western Canada.


Frank Oliver: I cannot speak definitely upon the administration of the immigration hall in Winnipeg. I am glad to know that some of the immigrants who come are well treated, and I will credit that up to the department. As to the treatment accorded to British immigrants and Cana-Mr. OLIVER.
dian immigrants, as far as Canadian" immigrants are concerned, my belief is that very few of them would care to use the immigrant shed in Winnipeg or anywhere else.


William Henry Sharpe: In some cases they do.


Frank Oliver: So far as British immigrants are concerned, I have been at some of the immigrant sheds in the northwest, and I have found British immigrants in them whenever I have gone, and my impression is that the advantage is given every time to the British immigrant.


William Henry Sharpe: Not in Winnipeg.


Frank Oliver: I think in Winnipeg, and I am sure in other places. In regard to the oath, my hon. friend is complaining of something that is a part of the general law of Canada. I am not undertaking to amend the general law of Canada in this Bill. It is not a matter which pertains to immigration; it is a matter which would be dealt with by an amendment to the general law, and my hon. friend would do well to bring his point to the attention of the Minister of Justice, in whose department the general law rests.


Glenlyon Campbell: Does the Bill not govern all classes of immigrants? It it does there could be nothing simpler than to put a clause in this Bill saying that no man shall be allowed to come in and take part in Canadian citizenship unless he is prepared to take the oath of allegiance, and in case of necessity to perform service for the flag that protects him, just as the rest of us do.


Frank Oliver: So far as that is concerned, subsection (c) of section 38 gives ample authority to meet that or any other case that may arise. But unless and until it is the mind of the people of Canada, as expressed in their statutes, that every _ man who . enjoys the benefits of citizenship in Canada should be required to fight for Canada when the occasion arises, I would feel rather doubtful about bringing it forward in an immigration Bill, which is of a subordinate character, undertaking as it were to dictate a policy in regard to a matter of general and vital interest to the country.


George Henry Bradbury: I think that clause 38 gives the government all the powers that the government ought to have. I think that a man who comes in to take up land should be required to take the oath of allegiance, but I do not think that should be exacted from every man who comes to this country. I think it ought to be left entirely in the hands of the man himself. If you ero to the United States or any other country in the world you can live there for fifty years and you do not need

to take the oath of allegiance unless you want to, and I do not think it would be wise to put such a provision on our statute-books.


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: I quite agree with my hon. friend that every man who gets land in this country should take the oath of allegiance; but I would not go so far as to compel every man to fight for the country. I do not think that those who abstain for conscience sake should be compelled to fight. I think the minister would do well to inquire into the complaint made in regard to the different treatment of immigrants at Winnipeg. There are one or two points in the Bill that I would like to discuss. I think it is a very good Bill on the whole; but I think the inspection should be done on the other side instead of on this side.


Uriah Wilson: On both sides.


Robert Bickerdike: On both sides if necessary. If gentlemen living in the west could see the heart-rending scenes that we in the east sometimes witness, when families are broken up on debarkation, they would feel as we do.
By section 2 clause (j) the cattle men are perhaps a little aggrieved. I would desire to insert the words: ' Not including a cattle man.' It now includes cattle men as immigrants. Most of them are Canadians and I do fcot think they should be brought under that section.
In clause 3 some of our friends ask that the words ' mentally ' be added after the word ' otherwise.'
In clause 23 we claim passengers are deprived o'f the right of appealing to the courts until they are passed by the Canadian officials, unless they are Canadians. We claim there should be always some place to appeal to, that the judgment of the doctors should not be final. That clause might be amended especially in the case of British subjects of the Anglo-Saxon race. This depriving them of the right to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus in a court is all wrong. In Great Britain a Canadian has the right to apply for a writ. I hope the minister will see his way clear to have the inspection made on the other side. It is pitiful to see the breaking up of a family. It may be that the youngest child is discovered to have trachoma, and the whole family is broken up and sent back. If the inspection were made in England or on the other side it would save all these heart rending scenes that we in the east are compelled to witness.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has presented the views held by the steamship companies. When the Bill was first introduced it was first made public. We were then called upon by some of the steamship 176	'
companies who made certain suggestions asking us to meet their views in certain particulars. I have certain amendments which I propose to offer at a later stage to meet some of the views of the shipping companies. There were some views that we did not feel able to meet, and these are the views my hon. friend has brought to the attention of the House.
While inspection at the other side would theoretically be the best as a matter of practice, so far we have found it impossible. First of all the government of Canada has no jurisdiction outside the boundaries of Canada, and an inspector stationed at the port of any other country would have no authority bv which his inspection could be enforced. He would be standing on unsafe ground, and would not be in a position to do credit to the authority of the government to which he was responsible. Besides that, in a large majority of cases the immigrant family have left their homes far away from any port at which our inspector could be stationed. If the immigrant comes from Northern Europe, Scandinavia, for instance, he travels across the German ocean to a British port, then across England to an Atlantic port at which port we might station our inspector. But the family would already have been broken up, and if they are met by a Canadian inspector at a British port they are no better off than they would be at a Canadian port. The steamship company would be better off because they would save the transport to and from Canada, but the immigrant is no better off.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Americans have their officers in Montreal and inspect immigrants before going to the United States. Is that by private arrangement?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why could not the same arrangement be made in Great Britain?


Frank Oliver: That would be no advantage to the immigrant.


Uriah Wilson: Would he not save his fare across the Atlantic?


Frank Oliver: Yes. The inspection by United States officers at Montreal or Quebec is quite different from inspecting at the other side of the Atlantic. The United States do not inspect on the other side of the Atlantic. Their inspection at Montreal, or Quebec is by arrangement with our people for the advantage of the steamship companies, running to Canadian ports so that they shall not be at any disadvantage in the transaction of United States business. It is an arrangement of amity between the officials of the two countries in order to facilitate the business of Canadian



steamships, and it does no injury to Canadian interests. It has no bearing on the question of inspection previous to the immigrants embarking on the other side of the Atlantic.


George Henry Bradbury: Does it not seem to the hon. minister that if the government would put the onus on the shipping companies by compelling them to do the inspection and fining them whenever they bring in any undesirables, that would have a very strong preventative effect. I believe there is a law in the United States of that kind. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) mentioned that fact to-day.


Frank Oliver: That is exactly our policy. While we have not imposed an actual fine upon the steamship companies, our view is that if they know that their undesirables are subjected to a strict inspection at our ports, and that the company will be put to Jhe double expense of taking them back again, they will take care not to bring out any. If that be not a sufficient deterrent, we will require to put on a fine. But what is absolutely wanted is a strict enforcement of the inspection law at the Canadian ports. By that means the responsibility is placed on the steamship companies, and these companies have been very much more careful during the past year or two than in previous years just because of that policy.


George Henry Bradbury: If the penalty were made high enough, that would be a great safeguard'. The mere fact of compelling the steamship companies to take these people back is not a sufficiently heavy penalty. There should be a heavy fine.


Frank Oliver: We find that the certainty that an undesirable immigrant will have to be taken back is a better deterrent than a heavy fine, because the company might be able to escape the fine. It is not the severity of the punishment, but the certainty, which is its best deterrent. If my hon. friend could only hear the roar which a steamship company puts up every time it has to take an immigrant back, he would think it was punished very severely.


Uriah Wilson: Will the hon. minister explain subsection 8 of clause 33?


George Taylor: Might I suggest to the minister that he should take twelve or fifteen hours to look up that section and become thoroughlv able to explain it. We have been here thirty hours continuously, and I arranged with the Minister of Finance that at 10 o'clock the committee would rise and report progress.


Frank Oliver: I am obliged to reply to the hon. member for Montreal, St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike) on the two or three points he mentioned.


Adam Brown Crosby: I want to speak on the same line and the hon. minister can answer both at the same time. I was very pleased indeed that the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) brought up the matter regarding the deportation of undesirable immigrants. When an immigrant comes into Canada who is undesirable, the steamship company discover that they have the onus of deporting him. and they use all their influence to try and keep him in Canada. I know that in Halifax the companies have named a doctor to represent them and examine the immigrants with the doctor of the government, and the company's doctor will use all his influence in favour of his employer. Of course when two professional men get together and have a difference regarding an immigrant, it is reasonable to expect that they will give the benefit of the doubt to the stronger interest, and that would be in favour of keeping the immigrant in Canada and relieving the steamship companies of the cost of deporting him. In the past we had more cases of undesirables kept in the country than now, but still we have quite a number at present. When a 'large company, such as the Allan line or the Canadian Pacific railway, bring in a number of passengers, and these passengers come up for medical inspection, the government doctor passes along and sets a great many to one side. Then he goes over them a second time and finds there are a few he can allow to remain. He goes over them again and studies them some more and then, influenced by the doctor representing the steamship company, he goes over the lot a fourth time for the purpose of relieving as many as possible. I do not blame the government's officials, because they act conscientiously and always give the newcomer the benefit of the doubt. I followed very closely the argument of the hon. member for St. Lawrence division. I think it would be well if this inspection could be made on the other side so that when the immigrants arrive here, they would feel at home and we could keep them and take care of them. You can understand what a hardship it is when a family lands at Halifax and two or three do not" pass the inspection and are sent back, and the others go on to the new land. When one portion of the family must go back to the old land and the other can take up homes in the new land, the division of that family is very sad. Therefore I would endorse the appeal made by the hon. member for St. Lawrence division, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike).


George Taylor: It is now five minutes past ten o'clock. The Minister of the Interior will read in ' Hansard ' what the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Crosby) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence division, Montreal (Mf. Bickerdike) has

said, and he can reply when the Bill is next in committee.
Progress reported.	.


George Taylor: What business to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We shall continue our work of completing the Interim Supply Bill, and then the Minister of the Interior will resume his Bill.
Motion agreed to and House adjourned at 10.05 p.m.
, HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 16, 1910.