1911-02-02

Mr. SPEAKER.: Upon the motion, yesterday, by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River for leave to introduce a Bill intituled an Act to amend chapter 139, 4 and 5, Edward VII., intituled ' An Act respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited,' I stated that I would to-day give a more extensive opinion upon his right to introduce the Bill as a public measure.
Upon a careful perusal of the proposed Bill I find that it is composed entirely of amendments to sections of the Act incorporating the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited, the main provisions being as follows :
To compel the company to provide further plans and execute additional work and carry out any new works required by such authority as may have jurisdiction on the Rainy river at or near Fort Frances, and that if, upon the application of the town or otherwise, it appears that the company has executed any work not approved by the Governor in Council the company shall, if directed, carry out any work or make any change required, and also with regard to the flow of water through the works of the company, the supply of power and energy, and the regulation of the methods and conditions under which the same shall be furnished and the prices therefor. And, further, that the company shall deliver, in Canada, a stated proportion of the total power delivered by them, and that the town of Fort Frances may, if a resolution of its council represents that the determination of the quantity of power, prices, conditions and manner of service of electrical power and energy is important in the interests of the town, apply to the Board of Railway Commissioners, which shall determine such application.
As to whether certain portions of the Bill are, or are not, properly the subject of a public Act is not necessary for me to determine, but upon the extracts from the Bill which I have just given I would state the following opinions from authorities. It is stated by Bourinot, 3rd edition, page 706, that:
Private Bills are distinguished from public Bills in that they directly relate to the affair?


Mr. COWAN.: of private individuals or of corporate bodies, and not to matters of public policy or to the community in general.
And at page 728:
'Bills from the corporations of towns and municipal bodies, generally, are always treated as private Bills when they desire special legislation affecting their property or interests.
And on page 729, Bourinot states as follows:
As a rule, it may be stated that when Bills treat of matters of general pdlicy, such as sanitary, or police, or commercial, or fiscal regulations, they may be considered as public measures. In fact, >alll Bills affecting the general interests of the community, and involving considerations of public policy, are out of the category of private Bills dealing with the special interests of corporations or associations.
May 6th edition, page 626, says:
Every Bill for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons, is treated as a private Bill. Whether it be for the interest of an individual, a public company or corporation, a parish, a city, a county, or other locality, it is equally distinguished from a measure of public policy, in which the whole community are interested.
Even in England the most extreme case in which a Bill affecting local interests has been admitted as a public Bill is in the case of the metropolis of London, where such Bills have frequently been held to be public Bills by reason of the large area and vast population and the variety of interests concerned, thus constituting them measures of public policy rather than of focal interest.
This cannot be'said to be the present case.
Ilbert's Legislative Methods and Forms (1901), at page 28 says:
A private Bill is a measure for the interest of some person or class of persons, whether an individual, a corporation, or the Inhabitants of a county, town, parish or other locality, and originates on the petition of the person or persons interested. A public Bill is introduced as a measure of public policy in which the whole comm unity is interested, and originates on the motion of some member of the House in which the Bill is introduced.
And on page 30:
Bills relating to particular localities only are, as a rule, treated as private Bills.
In view of the nature of the Bill proposed by the hon. member, and of the precedents (among which are those which I have already quoted) I must hold that the Bill is a private Bill, and must be introduced as such and must comply with the rules of the House respecting private Bills.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. MAODONELL:: 1.	Has the Grand Trunk Railway Company submited to the government or to the Minister of Railways and Canals plans for the erection of a new bridge across the mouth of the Humber river at Toronto?
2.	If so, is it true that such bridge is only about 19 feet above the water, and contains abutments encroaching upon the river banks, and at least one pier in the middle of the stream, 15 feet wide by 80 feet long, which is said to be more in the nature of a dam than a pier?
3.	Is the government aware that such a structure would practically dam up the river and cause water and ice to back up and ruin the banks and trees, &e., thereon?
4.	Is the government aware that the Humber river is now a navigable stream from Lake Ontario to Bloor street, a distance of something over 2 miles, and the valley is about to become the site of a system of parks and driveways for the city of Toronto?
5.	Has the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries been called to the fact that the erection of such a structure would be placing an obstruction in a navigable stream?
^ Mr. PLGSLrA. I have not a written answer to this question, but I think I can give all the information which the hon. gentleman desires. The Grand Trunk Railway Company has applied to my department for the approval of the pians of a bridge across the Humber river, and they have also app'ied to the Board of Railway Commissioners for approval. From the fact that the company has applied to my department for approval, the application being made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I would assume that they are of opinion that the river is navigable. I have a communication from the city of Toronto to its solicitors and also from the solicitors of certain gentlemen who are interested in property along the banks of the Humber river, desiring to be heard. I have an application also from the company asking me to name an early date for the hearing, and I propose to do so and then to notify the city of Toronto and the solicitors for the gentlemen interested, so that all parties can have an opportunity of being heard.


'CANADA'S FARTHEST SOUTH,' PRINTING OF PAMPHLET.
Mr. ARMSTRONG :: 1. What was the cost of printing and preparing the pamphlet entitled ' Canada's Farthest South,' as published by the Minister of the Interior?
i
2.	What amount of money was paid to H. A. Kennedy, wf the London ' Times ' staff for preparing same?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Cost of printing, $974.57. Cost of preparation answered by No. 2.
2.	$255.50.


TARIFF ON FISH.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	On tariff schedule A, of January 26, 1911, articles free of duty, item It, which reads: ' Fish of all kinds, fresh, frozen, packed in ice, salted or preserved in any form, except sardines and other fish preserved in oil; and shell fish of all kinds, including oysters, lobsters and clams in any state, fresh or packed, and coverings of the foregoing,' does the expression ' coverings of the foregoing ' apply to and inclnde the cans, packages, cases and coverings in which all classes of fish mentioned are contained?
2.	Under item 15 of said schedule, which reads ' seal, herring, whale and other fish oil, including cod oil,' are the containers in which said oils are shipped, free of duty?
3.	In a former tariff treaty, made with the United States, affecting Canada, were Canadian fish allowed free admission in the United States, and the cans, packages, cases and coverings, or any of them, containing same, held to be dutiable?
4.	Were fish oils allowed free admission to the United States, and the containers thereof held to he liable to duty?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	Yes.	.
2.	Yes.
3.	There was some difficulty in former years as to the taxation of packages when the contents thereof were free.
4.	I have not been able to ascertain whether the difficulty of former years applied to fish oil.


KINGSTON MILITARY FEED CONTRACTS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: To whom was the contract awarded for the supplying hay, straw and oats for the batteries at Kingston, and at what prices?


Mr. MURPHY.: To Charles Donoghue at: $10 per ton for hay, $6.50 per ton for straw, 45 cents per bushel for oats.


PRINTING DONE BY ' GLOBE ' NEWSPAPER
Mr. GRAHAM.: I have been asked by the Toronto ' Globe ' to make a correction in a matter which somewhat relates to my department, and the briefest way to do so is to read this despatch
The 'Globe ' has received from the Dominion government, including the Intercolonial railway, during the past three years an average of $8,500 per annum. Three papers

here report Mr. Lennox as stating in the House that we receive $80,000 per annum.
(Sgd.) JOHN F. MACK AY.


APPOINTMENT OF CENSUS OFFICIALS.
Mr. BLAIN.: I wish to ask the government whether they are now appointing the census commissioners?


Mr. FIELDING.: I am aware, from communications which I have had with the Minister of Agriculture, that he is receiving applications for appointment as census commissioners. I do not know whether any have been officially appointed or not, hut I know that he is collecting names for that purpose.



SUPPLY-DAMMING THE ST. LAWRENCE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["The high contracting parties further agree that any other questions or matters of difference arising between them involving the rights, obligations or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other, along the common frontier between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, shall he referred from time to-time to the International Joint Commission for examination and report whenever either the government of the United States or the government of the Dominion of Canada shall request that such questions or matters of difference be so referred.\nI thought the Minister of Justice had only cited article 3 as applicable, and I still think it is the only -article that gives us any recourse in this matter. The general provision- here is for submitting all other questions that may arise, 1 any other questions or matters of difference.' But article 3 has determined how you will submit -questionsU-hat have regard to obstructions to navigation, and as the Minister of Justice very correctly said, article 3 necessarily implies that so long as such obstruction does not affect the flow of water, there is nothing to submit to the Boundary Commission. As I said, article 3 settles how and when all matters regarding obstructions in navigable rivers shall be submitted to the Boundary Commission. The other article makes provision that other matters not dealt with in that particular section, may he submitted, but does not affect the express limitation with regard to obstructions in navigable waters. So I\tthink we\tare more than\njustified, on this side of the House, in being exceedingly anxious with regard to\n[DOT]2927", "the fate of that legislation which is now before the American congress. I do not need to insist upon the immense importance of this matter to Canada as a whole, and particularly its immense importance to Montreal. And after all, what is important to the city of Montreal is important to the whole of Canada, as Montreal stands at the head of ocean navigation, and at the foot of what we have heretofore called in land navigation, which inland navigation, it does seem to me, may be most seriously affected by any interference with the flow of the St. Lawrence at this or at any other point. I would earnestly urge that the government reconsider their view about the helplessness of our position, and that they do give to Canada the benefit of their 'best endeavours to impress upon the American congress that we have rights, and that they are entitled to be respected.\nAt six o'clock. House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, before the House goes into Committee of Supply, I would like to call the attention of the government to proceedings which are now pending before the United States Congress for conferring powers upon a company which proposes to construct a darn across the River St. Lawrence near what is known as the Long Sault. We have in Canada what may be fairly described as the greatest system of inland waterways in the world, and every one of us, I think, realizes that the River St. Lawrence is not only an important, but a vital portion of that system of waterways. The Prime Minister is no doubt thoroughly aware that under the treaty between Great Britain and the United States which was negotiated and ratified in 1842, it was provided by article VII. as follows:
It is further agreed that the channels in the River St. Lawrence on both sides of the Long Sault islands and of Barnhart island, the channels in the River Detroit, on both sides of the Island Bois Blanc, and between that island and both the Canadian and American shores, and all the several channels and passages between the various islands lying near the junction of the River St. Clair with the lake of that name, shall be equally free and open to the ships, vessels and boats of both parties.
So that the channels of the River St. Lawrence, from shore to shore, at the particular point which I have mentioned, are, under the terms of this treaty, to remain forever open to both nations. The country was rather disturbed by a proposal which was brought before this House during the last session of parliament, to grant to certain gentlemen authority to construct that portion of the dam across the River St Lawrence which would lie in Canadian waters.


George Perry Graham: 


Mr. PUGSLEY.: There was no such proposal as that before parliament last session.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I have an entirely different recollection in that regard from that of my hon. friend.	*


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has not read the Bill, I am afraid. [DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: I read the Bill and debated it. The hon. gentleman is very ready to rise and interrupt and contradict. He is no more correct on this occasion than he has been on several occasions in the immediate past. The proposal that was laid before parliament last session involved the damming of the River St. Lawrence, according to my opinion of what that proposal really meant. I shall not go over that argument again. I stated my apprehension of what the proposal was at the time. The mere fact that the hon. gentleman entertains a different view of the proposal does not justify him in making the fiat contradiction which he did a moment ago.
The legislature of the state of New York passed an Act, I do not know just at what date, which confers certain powers upon a company that had been organized in the United States. I believe that the real promoter of that measure is a very wealthy and powerful company in the United States called the Aluminium Company. The state of New York was not able to give to the promoters the complete powers which they desired, and there is now a Bill before the Congress of the United States which is designed to round out and complete the powers, so that this company may have absolute authority, so far as the state of New York and the Congress of the United States can give it, to dam the River St. Lawrence. I appreciate thoroughly, of course, the fact that we retain jurisdiction over our own portion of the bed of the River St. Lawrence, notwithstanding anything that the Congress of the United States may enact. This company proposes to develop about 500,000 horse-power. That is to be developed for purely manufacturing purposes, and I find in the measure a reasonable enough provision, if it were to go through, that at least half of this power shall be for use in the United States, and that no more than half of the total power generated by the complete works shall be employed or used in Canada. The Bill now before Congress has been opposed by a great many Canadian interests, as I am informed. I find, from a brief which has been filed in ' opposition to this Bill, that memorials have been filed before the Committee of Congress by the International Waterways Commission, the board of trade of the city of Toronto, the Dominion Marine Association, the Montreal board of trade, La Chambre de Com-

meree du District of Montreal, the Commission for Conservation of Canada, the Ontario government by its attorney I. Hillard, K.C., and Geo. C. Bolt, for the New York Board of Trade, all in opposition to the Bill. The Bill proposes, as I understand from this brief-because I have not been able to secure an authentic copy of the Bill except so far as it has been published in the press of the country-in the first place, a channel and a lock on the American side, and, in the next place, a complete dam across both channels. Of course, it is realized that authority to construct that portion of the dam across the Canadian portion of the channel must come from this parliament. The project includes all that, and this company has obtained from the state of New York and is in process of obtaining from the Congress of the United States the authority that will enable it by and by to come to this parliament and say, we now invite you to give us authority to make this connecting link for the purpose of developing this enormous power. I was rather struck by one sentence in the report of the Committee of Congress which had this Bill under consideration. That committee has favourably reported upon the Bill, and it now stands in Congress upon that favourable report. One sentence in that report I may quote as informing this House and this country of one powerful reason why that Bill has commended itself to the Committee of Congress. That sentence is this; the proposal of the company to furnish a suitable channel for commerce entirely in American territory. The dam will go completely across the river, from shore to shore, and the proposal is that the channel shall be entirely in American territory, the suggestion being that this will be a very much more advantageous situation for the people of the United States than that which exists at the present time.
Now this company undertakes to do very wonderful things. In the preamble of this Bill now before Congress it is said that, among other things, it is for the purpose of improving the navigaton of the St. Lawrence; and in the first section of the Bill there is the declaration that the purposes of the corporation include the permanent improvement of the navigation of the St. Lawrence at above or below such place. The government of Canada up to the present has followed the policy, and I hope will persevere in it, that the navigation of the St. Lawrence is of such paramount importance that it ought not to be confided to private interests, but should be kept absolutely under the control of the people as represented by parliament. But it appears that the navigation of that river shall be confided in a certain measure at least, to the great and powerful company which is
behind those proposals. I do not propose to go at any length into the dangers of the Bill now before the American Congress; but I may say, quoting from the brief which has been filed in opposition to that/ Bill, that Mr. John Kennedy, of Montreal, a very skilful and experenced engineer, appeared as a witness on behalf of the Montreal Board of Harbour Commissioners. Mr. Kennedy is an engineer of very well known ability, character and experience. He lives upon the St. Lawrence and has made it a life study, more particularly as regards its navigation, and he did not hesitate to express the opinion that the project, upon the facts disclosed, would result in an impairment of navigation instead of an improvement. Two captains and pilots, who have been engaged for years in the navigation of the St. Lawrence, both upon freight and passenger vessels, joined in expressing the same opinion. The brief goes on further to state that the experience of the Canadian government in an energetic effort to improve navigation at the Galop rapids, is conclusive demonstration of the fact that it is impossible to tell in advance what effect an obstruction of this kind would have on the navigation of that river:
The Canadian government, under the advice of its best engineers, expended $1,100,000 in an attempt to improve navigation at the Gallop rapids for the last few years.
And I am merely quoting the brief when I say that the experiment has not proved a very great success and has not justified the anticipations which were formed with regard to it. Now it is stated further in this brief, and I commend this to the House a3 an opinion to which some weight might be attached:
It is impossible for either engineers or pilots to state precisely what the result of the project would be as to navigation. The probabilities only can be suggested. The project once authorized, the investment once made, if the result is disastrous to navigation, the public will have to bear it, except on the condition of reimbursing the company for its investments.
Further than that, this proposal is said by the report of this commission to be probably subject-in all probability subject- to the sanction of the InternationalJYater-ways Commission. It is perfectly time that one clause of the Bill does expressly state, according to the press report, that the said Long Sault Development Company, its successors and assignees shall be subject to the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain relative to the boundary waters between the United States and Canada, proclaimed by the President of the United States on the 13th July, 1910. But is not made expressly subject to the provision of the Ashburton

treaty, and the provisions of that treaty are much more vitally important to the people in that regard than are the provisions of the treaty to which allusion is made in the Bill now before Congress. The danger of ice dams is also pointed out in this brief, tout as that was discussed last year, I shall not go into it to-day except to say that it is one which ought__not to be lost sight of by the government.
I have spoken so far altogether of the danger which may result to our great system of inland waterways, but it seems _ to me there is possibly another aspect which should not be lost sight of. We know the importance of our water-powers to-day in Canada, and we shall realize more thoroughly in years to come their exceeding great value. They are not like supplies of coal and iron and other natural resources of this country, which are dissipated in, the user. Our water-powers are permanent and enduring, and their value is likely to be much greater in the future. What are we to do with them? Should we preserve them for the benefit of the whole people of Canada or hand them over to the control of a great private corporation and an alien corporation at that ? I think it would be madness for this country to consent to the latter alternative. I go further. When a project of this kind has been put forward on the other side of the line and has already received the sanction of the state_ of New York and is now asking the sanction of Congress, this government, not only on account of the danger of the impairment of the navigation of the St. Lawrence and our system of inland waterways, tout for the purpose of protecting the great water-powers of this country and seeing that they are developed in the interests of the whole people, ought to take energetic measures to make known their views in this regard. The development of these water-powers, if ever undertaken, should only be undertaken subject to the paramount importance of our system of inland waterways^ If it can be undertaken without the slightest danger of impairment to that great system, it ought to be undertaken by or under the control of this government so that these natural resources of immense value now, and of infinitely greater value in the future, should be conserved for the 'benefit of the whole people of Canada. Therefore I thought it right to bring these facts to the notice of parliament, even in this very brief and somewhat fragmentary way, and to ask the government -whether in the first place they have taken any steps, or propose to take any, to safeguard the interests of navigation, and in the second place to make it perfectly plain that this country does not intend to commit itself to any scheme by which these enormously valuable natural resources shall be handed over to a private corporation ?


Robert Laird Borden: 


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Every one is aware that this is a subject regarding which, ever since it has been called to the attention of the country, there is_ quite a serious nervousness in public opinion as to the consequences which might flow from the intended works to which my hon. friend has just alluded. In fact I believe that the nervousness existing has been beyond the cause-natural and legitimate as it was -and what should have been the effect of such a cause. I believe that in many instances it has prejudged the opinion even of members of the House. And in this I would not exclude even my hon. friend, because, if I understood him aright, he has just expressed again the opinion which he expressed last session, that the Bill had the effect of authorizing the damming of the St. Lawrence. My opinion is different from that expressed bv my hon. friend. Reading the Bill in cold blood, whatever may have been intended afterwards, it seems clear that the effect of the Bill of last session was simply to authorize a transmission line and nothing else.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the Bill as introduced.


Wilfrid Laurier: Even the Bill as introduced, I think I am right in saying, related to a transmission line only. But my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) and many other members of the House saw in this transmission line Bill something nefarious, they saw a scheme to block the St. Lawrence. And even in the observations my hon. friend has just addressed to the House, he shows that he still looks upon this measure as implying the damming of the St. Lawrence from shore to shore. Speaking for myself, at all events, before the government of the day would agree to such a proposal there would be very ample discussion in this House and a good deal more information than we have upon the matter at the present time. I understand that the men, especially in the city of Montreal, who are primarily interested in this question, seek to block this measure at every step because they fear that the ultimate object is to throw a bar across the St. Lawrence from shore to shore.	.	,
The Bill to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago was first introduced in the legislature of the state of New York and passed. It was afterwards introduced in the federal legislature at Washington and has, I understand, taken its preliminary stages. So far as I am aware-and, at present, my information concerning it is simply from the public prints-it deals only with the southern channel-


Mr. REID (Grenville).: The South Sault.


Wilfrid Laurier: That channel is undoubtedly in American territory. Now, let us take the first step in this matter.

The channel is in American territory; my understanding of international law is that a sovereign power has the right, in the case of an international stream such as this, to place upon its own shore of that stream all works which it deems for its own advantage, being limited alone by the necessity, as in this case particularly, of not doing anything which would affect navigation.


John Dowsley Reid: Would not the damming of the South Sault impair navigation?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not
the question at the present time; I am considering only the principle of international law. The Americans, as I understand it, have the right to use that stream in any way they please, but they are not to do anything to impair navigation.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: Under treaty.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. That is the general principle of international law, but is still more true in this case because of the treaty of 1842. But, Sir, if a nation, under such circumstances, does anything which, in the opinion of the nation on the other side of the stream, impairs navigation, who is to decide? Under international law there is no tribunal to settle the point whether it is or is not an impairment of navigation; and the only remedy under such circumstances would be for the party who thinks that the work does impair navigation to appeal to the honour and honesty of the other side.


John Allister Currie: The Ashburton treaty covers that point fairly. It states there must be ' free navigation,' so the sovereign right of the United States is given up.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is what I said. But I was pointing out that if the United States puts up a work on its side of the stream which in our opinion, impairs navigation but in their opinion does not impair navigation, who is to decide? If it were a provincial or national stream in our own territory, the matter would go before the courts. But the hon. gentleman knows that, while we have principles of international law well known and generally recognized by the nations, there is, up to this moment, no tribunal to see to the observance of these principles. The only arbitrament we have is that of war. But we can do this,-we can protest and appeal to the other side and represent that this is an interference with our treaty rights.


Robert Laird Borden: Would not the Ashburton treaty cover that?


Wilfrid Laurier: Is not the Ashburton treaty the last arbitration treaty-yes ; I was just coming, or had just come to that. While nations generally have no arbitrament in such matters we have constituted a tribunal to cover these points. So, this law of Congress, if it passes, would be passed over our protest,, and the matter must be submitted to the court we have constituted under the Waterways treaty.
I may say that we on our side of the St. Lawrence have erected works, which, to. some extent may interfere with navigation, but not to such an extent as to cause remonstrance on the other side?


John Dowsley Reid: Where are these?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think that ' the dam at Sheik island is one. I do not know to what extent it may interfere with navigation, but in some respects, it is beneficial. No protest has been made. I put this by way of illustration. We have taken it upon ourselves to disturb the channel as nature made it.
When we heard of this Bill being introduced at Washington, we put ourselves into communication with the British jimbassa-dor to remonstrate; and correspondence is going on now upon the subject. I expect that we shall have an official copy of the Bill at a very early day. I may say that I was informed that the Bill reported from the committee in charge of the same is considerably different from the Bill as introduced. However that may be, we have taken steps to have the whole correspondence laid before us, and as soon as we receive it it will be our duty at once to lay it before the House.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Have the government consulted in this matter with the government of Ontario or the Hydro-Electric Commission?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, we have not come to the point of consulting anybody. We have not the measure before us-.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is it the intention to consult


Wilfrid Laurier: We will decide that when we have the Bill.


Mr. BRODER.: Apparently, the International Waterways Commission, under the treaty, will have a great deal of power in deciding this matter. If they decide it, will that put it beyond the power of this House?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am afraid that the question of works to be constructed in the United States is beyond the jurisdiction of this House.


Andrew Broder: But they know that under the treaty they cannot affect the height of the water on the other side without having the approval of both countries. So if they dammed the Sault, and it had the effect of raising the height of water on the Canadian side, we would have something to say about it What I wanted to know is if this

commission took the matter up and decided that a dam there was permissible, would this parliament cease to have any control over the subject?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a question of law. I would not be prepared to say.


Andrew Broder: A very important question. There is one thing we must consider. There is no American interest that would suffer at all if this approval was granted. The only interests to suffer on either side are Canadian interests. You cannot put your finger on a single solitary American interest but that would gain by damming the river there. Now, look at the condition of things in the New England states. The large manufacturing centres thatl have been using water-power, and where they have denuded the country of timber, now find that a continuous water supply is failing them. There exists now a great deal of apprehension in the eastern states in manufacturing districts on this very point. The whole object of this undertaking is, if possible, to get control of that river for the development of electrical power, and to transmit that power to all that eastern section of the country, where the larger manufacturing centres of the United States exist. Now, we know that if they get control of that power and transmit it to these centres to build up their manufactories, it will be impossible for Canada ever to get back their share of that power, if they once let it go. Now these are questions certainly of vital interest to the Canadian people. I speak from a local knowledge of the circumstances. We' know that engineers, with all their intelligence, sometimes make great mistakes; they have made great mistakes in this country within a short time. No one can tell what effect that dam might have upon the general interest of navigation in this country; we do not know anything about it. It seems to me that if a commission is to be allowed to deal with this matter, they should have at least the most thorough knowledge of the local conditions before they do anything. 1 live in a locality that will be seriously affected by this dam, at least that is the apprehension, and for that 'reason I did not wish to allow this matter to pass without savins something.


Mr. TURRIFF.: There is one phase of this question that has not been touched on. When it was up for discussion a year ago, it was pointed out that in 1901 this House gave the St. Lawrence Power Company authority to dam the St. Lawrence river at this particular point. That com-panv was partly Canadian and partly Mr. BRODER.
American, but afterwards the charter was assigned to a totally American company. All that company require at the present time is the approval of the Minister of Public Works to the plans that they may submit to this government, in order to enable them to build a dam across the St. Lawrence river at this point. It was stated by one of the men\ interested in the Bill that was before the House last year, that they were going to get the authority, they were going to build a dam, and they would give Canada 90 days in which to take up one-half the power, and if it was not taken up within that period, the whole power would be sent to New York, the idea being to send it to New York city. What I would like to be sure about is that this company cannot get the right to dam the St. Lawrence by getting the approval and authority of the present Waterways Commission. I would like to have the assurance of the Prime Minister that was given last year, that before anything is done on that line to enable this company, or any other company, to dam the St. Lawrence, before any plans are approved, or authority is given, there shall be an opportunity for ample discussion of the whole matter in the House of Commons.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: Perhaps we had better get a clear understanding of the position we are in. What are our legal rights in reference to this matter? The hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Turriff) says that in 1901 power was given by this parliament to some company to dam the river. My contention is that under the Ashburton treaty no government in this country can give power to a private company to do anything of the kind; that power must come directly from the parliament of Canada. Have we the right to delegate all our powers to this International Waterways Commission? I saw it stated when the Bill was introduced in the United States that this legislation must be subject to the approval of the International Commission. Have we given our powers to that commission that we exercise under the Ashburton treaty? If we have, then that commission have the power of approval of a project to erect the construction provided for by that Bill. As I understand the agreement between the two governments, they have both given to this International Commission the approval of works of this kind. I need not dwell upon the necessity of this work, I spoke upon it before in the House. I have a strong view that this spot is perhaps one of the most beautiful in Canada, and it ought to be preserved to the people of Canada for all generations. Its value

to Canadians from an aesthetic point of view will be greater than its value as a source of electrical power. How much the proposition will interfere with navigation, we know not. I think perhaps improvements could be made on that stream of such a character that they would not interfere with the use of the river for navigation. But I protest as a Canadian against the damming of the river at that beautiful spot, and using it solely as a purpose of acquiring wealth. My ideas may be perhaps not sufficiently utilitarian, not up to the ideals of the present day, but such as they are I gave them to the House. I did not know that the Act passed by this House in 1901 had the wide power the hon. gentleman says it had. I do not remember any such Bill passing the House, I doubt very much if it gave such power. It may be a Bill empowering them to do some kind of work, but I do not think there is anything on our statute-book transferring this property absolutely to them. The control of that is entirely in our hands. We have not interfered with the navigation in any way on our side. We have improved the navigation. The erection of the Sheik's island dam for the purpose of improving navigation has interfered in no way with any right that the Americans had under the Ashburton treaty. It was improving and utilizing the river for the purpose of navigation and not for the purpose of interfering with it at all. That is a right which we have exercised from time immemorial and can. Finally, let us keep that, one of the beauty spots of the country, for the benefit of the whole people of Canada, not devoting it to the utilitarian purpose of generating 500,000 or 600,000 horse-power, but keeping it to look upon, if for nothing else.


John Dowsley Reid: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say that he had already protested to British Ambassador Bryce against the passage of this Bill in Washington?


Wilfrid Laurier: We made representations-yes.


John Dowsley Reid: With reference to the understanding of the Prime Minister that this is simply to dam what is called the South Sault, I have (before me the Bill which was passed in New York state, and which is being confirmed in Washington, and they are asking for power.
To construct, maintain and operate for water-power and other purposes a dam or dams across the St. Lawrence river between points on the United States and Canadian shores of said river near Long Sault island, or Barnhart's island or Sheik's island.


Mr. LENNOX.: And to the international boundary.


John Dowsley Reid: To the international boundary line. So, it is not through what is known as the South Sault. The Prime Minister also stated that we had practically violated the Ashburton treaty when we had built what is known as the Sheik's island dam.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not say that. I said that we had interfered with nature.


John Dowsley Reid: Sheik's island dam is below the head of the canal, so that there was no waterway. There might have been a little water running through but there was no navigation of any kind. The Ashburton treaty says that neither government must interfere with navigation between Sheik's island, and the American shore, and Sheik's island is on the Canadian side. If there had been navigation between Sheik's island and the Canadian shore we would have been interfering with the Ashburton treaty.


George Perry Graham: What are the words of the Ashburton treaty?


John Allister Currie: They are not just exactly as they are construed in this discussion. The words are as follows :
It is further 'agreed that the channels in the River St. Lawrence on both sides of the Long Sault islands and of Barnhart island; the channels in the River Detroit op both sides of the Island Bois Blanc, and between that island and both the American and Canadian shores; and all the several channels and passages between the varions islands lying near the junction of the River St. Clair with the lake of that name, shall be equallj free and open to the ships, vessels and boats of both parties.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is to say that in the Canadian channel the Americans have the right of navigation, and in the American channel the 'Canadians have the right of navigation.


John Allister Currie: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: The Ashburton treaty says that the channels in the St. Lawrence river are free to both parties. There is not any channel on the other side of Sheik's island. The whole channel is at Long Sault and at Barnhart's island. This South Sault channel that they propose to dam is a navigable stream, and is used every day. It is the channel that freight- boats are going down every day ; not very large freight boats, but steamers 100 feet long and 20 feet wide run down through there. They carry probably 100 tons. Then, the rafts all go down through the South Sault, and they have been running down there for fifty or one hundred years. The smaller pleasure steamers go down there. If they dam that channel, I understand the right hon. Prime Min-

ister believes that the north side would then ibe all right for those large steamers like the Richelieu Navigation Company's steamers. But the damming of the South Sault is sure to raise the water many feet. I suppose the effect will be to raise it 40 feet. Thus, it will throw the water into the North Sault and spoil that channel. That is the impression of marine men. They have led the Prime Minister to believe that all they propose to do is to erect this dam but, once that channel is spoiled, you might as well let them go on and do as they like.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Reid,	Grenville) understands	the	local
conditions, and I would like him to explain. I understand that the Bill provides that this company shall have the right to extend dams as far northward as the international boundary line?
Mr.	REID (Grenville).	Yes.Mr.	LENNOX. That	would	cross	over
from the shore to Barnhart's island, and then to Long Sault island.
Mr.	REID (Grenville).	And	then	from
IiOng Sault to Shiek's island.


Haughton Lennox: And the international boundary is north of Sheik's island.


John Dowsley Reid: No Sheik's island is on the Canadian side.


Haughton Lennox: Well, that would extend their dam <as far north as Long Sault island before they would come to the international boundary?


John Dowsley Reid: It would extend it to Sheik's island dam which would be the international boundary.


Haughton Lennox: The international boundary is south of Sheik's .island.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: In doing that would they not be cutting off the only available channel there is now?


John Dowsley Reid: We would only have a small part of the stream. At that particular point where they want to construct the dam practically the whole of the river is on the American side. The South Sault is entirely on the American side.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a question for the engineers as to what would be the effect of this work. The Bill which is now under consideration at Washington does not, as the hon. gentleman has stated quite incorrectly, provide for the creation of a dam from shore to shore, but only provides for a dam for the South Sault.


John Dowsley Reid: 


Haughton Lennox: A dam to the international boundary.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps it would foe to the international boundary.


John Allister Currie: I think the right hon. gentleman is mistaken. The Bill provides for a dam all the way across.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Bill as introduced in the state of New York provided for a dam from shore to shore, but we will know only when we have the Bill before us. My impression is that the present Bill which has been reported from the committee, and which has taken its first stage at Washington is for the building of a dam across the South Sault.


John Dowsley Reid: It also enables them to build from shore to shore. Here is the original Bill which was passed in New York state.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend is wrong, but we are interested in knowing what would be the effect of the damming of the South Sault, and that alone is quite sufficient to raise a discussion in order to know where we are with reference to it.


John Dowsley Reid: Exactly, but this proposition to dam the South Sault is certainly a violation of-the Ashburton treaty If we do not object to the damming of the South Sault we will certainly be allowing them to violate the Ashburton treaty without protest. I do not think that the United States Congress would pass a Bill which violates the Ashburton treaty if we notify them to that effect, and I think the Prime Minister in the name of Canada should enter his objection at once. If the Canadian government is silent our silence may be taken for consent. The Prime Minister knows that prominent Canadian lawyers have been engaged bv this company to appear before Congress and I understand they have represented that this is satisfactory to the Canadian government, so that we should take measures not to leave them under any wrong impression about that.


Robert Laird Borden: As reported in the press this company is authorized
To construct, maintain and operate for navigation, water-power and other purposes for 99 years a dam or dams in so much of the St. Lawrence river as lies sonth of the international boundary line between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada, near Long Sault, Barnhart, and Sheik islands either independently or in connection with like works now erected or to he erected in so much of said river as lies north of said international boundary line, with a bridge or bridges and approaches thereto and a lock or locks, a canal or canals, and other structures appurtenant thereto.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, if that be true it is plain that the Prime Minister misunderstands the nature of the Bill before Congress. I shall send a copy of this over to the Prime Minister and I trust a nrotest will be entered by him. I am quite satisfied that the right hon. gentleman is as anxious as I am to protect our great waterway system, and if he has been misled as to the intentions of these people he should at once communicate with the authorities at Washington so as to stop this Bill going through Congress.


Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine Hat).: I wish to say a few words in connection with this matter, not from any sentimental reason as expressed by the hon. member for South Lanark, but because it anpears to me there is a principle involved in this question which should be settled by the Canadian parliament. I am opposed to the damming of the St. Lawrence river and I believe it to be in the interests of the Canadian people that we should oppose it. Last year we had a discussion extending over several hours on this matter, and it was then stated to the House that certain interests had applied to the government to be permitted to dam the river; that the-"- ..a submitted certain plans, that 'the government sent three engineers to the place to examine the situation, and, that these engineers reported against the project. I understand the idea was to build a dam some 50 feet high so as to create about 600,000 horse-power. Then those interests came back to the government about a year afterwards with amended plans and -the same engineers were sent to report upon the amended scheme and the^ reported it to be satisfactory. What struck me in examining the reports of those engineers i=- that they looked at the matter purely from the standpoint of the feasibility of erecting a dam and creating that quantity of horsepower without doing damage to the immediate neighbourhood, but, what I should like to have seen brought out by the engineers was the economic value of the project to the people of Canada. That point was not touched upon as it should be. I do hope that our engineers when acting for the people of Canada would in dealing with such questions take into consideration the economic side of the question. The question arises: Do we need the development of 300,000 horse-power on the St. Lawrence near the city of Montreal. I sav we do not. I believe there is sufficient water-power in ilie immediate neighbourhood of this city to supply the needs of the people of eastern Canada for many years to come. If we had a proper inventory of our water-powers and if wre had any authority who could tell us the needs of this country at the end of the next 100 years, and should it be discovered that we have sufficient power for our 921
own purposes and some to spare, I would be willing to join in obliging our neighbours. But, when we have private interests coming here asking for the right to dam the St. Lawrence river, insistent applicants who will return year after year, it is high time for the government to lay down the policy that the St. Lawrence river is not to be touched so far as the Canadian side is concerned. I should like to hear the government announce that they will not join in any movement to dam that great waterway from the American to the Canadian side. The St. Lawrence river is one of the scenic routes of the world; its scenery to-day is one of the assets of the country, and it will become a more valuable asset as time rolls on. The scenic beauty of the St. Lawrence is now a valuable asset to the cities of Montreal, Quebec, and Toronto, and we should not lose sight of the fact that apparently it is of no corresponding value to cities on the other side of the line. However, that may be, I have never yet heard it stated that the people of Canada need the power which it is proposed to secure by damming the St. Lawrence river at this place. Last year the Minister of Public Works announced that if the river should be dammed he would see that Canada received one-half the power. I go further than the minister; I do not lose sight of the fact that we have 7,000,000 people in Canada as compared with 90,000,000 in the United States, and my doctrine is:	Equal division yielding
equal benefits. That is the doctrine we should insist upon, and so far, as I am concerned, if these very persistent private interests have got the. government committed in any way to the damming of the St. Lawrence; then, we should take care that for everv 500 horse-power taken out on the American side the same amount should be taken out in Canada and put to beneficial uses here. That is the doctrine I believe in.
I submit, however, in the interest of the country that the St. Lawrence river should be left alone so far as Canada is concerned.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: I speak with a good deal of hesitation on this question as I cannot attempt to deal with anything that has been said on either side to-day, but I have followed with the closest possible attention everything which, up to the present time, has been said in this House either last year or this year referring to this matter. It is inevitable, I suppose that I should look at this subject very largely from the lawyer's standpoint, but while I know that is so, I am consoled by the reflection that it is very seldom indeed that good law is not good sense; and' in whatever I have to say in the matter, I hope hon. gentlemen will do me the justice to believe that I am not trying to lay down the law at all, tout that I wrnnt merely such

viaws as I have on the subject to be treated by my fellow members just according to the amount of sense that they think there is behind them. The question here properly concerns our international relations with the United States, and in that sense is one, I take it, of international law.^ But while we use the phrase ' international law,' understanding very well what we mean by it, I think we ought always to remember that, after all, there is no one competent to say with any authority, what international law is, or what it requires. There are no statutes, no enactments of parliament, defining what is the law of nations; there is no court, no judge, who can authoritatively declare this or that or the other principle to be one which nations must regard; and we are driven, in endeavouring to see what are the rights of peoples as a matter of international law, back to the relations which exist between individuals in the same community and governed by the same law. Now, if you think of the situation of this river, apart from any international agreements, but simply as a matter of what this country could do about it if the United States saw fit to place any obstruction in a channel of the river which is wholly within their territory, I think it is manifest that we should be practically helpless, exactly as, if the facts were reversed and Canada were proposing to erect any dam or obstruction in a channel of the river which was wholly Canadian, the United States would be practically helpless to prevent it. The most that could be done by either nation would he in the way of expostulation to the other -representations that you ought not to do this, that it is not fair or right that you should. As a matter of fact, we have international agreements to which we can refer and appeal, if we can satisfy either ourselves or our neighbours that any transgression of these agreements is being contemplated. But in the absence of such agreements, there would be no security even to what we regard as the paramount right of navigation, much less any means practically existing by which, if a proposed work in the United States were going to damage property in Canada, or a proposed work in Canada were going to damage property in the United States, the country which feared the damage, could prevent that damage being done. But it is always founded upon the circumstance that the.Te will be damage. Suppose this stream were all in one country; suppose that the International boundary had been fixed on the 44th parallel instead of the 45th, so that all the territory in question would be in Canada; and, to avoid *any complication, let us assume it all to" lie in the one province of Ontario. Now, what would be the right Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
even in law or in equity, of a man who owned property on the north shore of the river as against the people on the south shore, who might be wanting to do the very thing which is proposed to he done in this instance? That right would simply be-in the sense of the thing surely-would be that if the .proposed work were going to damage the man on the north shore, the courts would stop it. He has a right to have the Tiatural level of the water preserved as it passes his land. If he is going to be flooded by the proposed work, or if the level is going to be lowered to his damage, he can prevent it if he goes to the court and takes proper steps to do so. So that at the basis of the whole right, in honesty or sense, to make any objection, there lies the hypothesis that damage is going to be done, that the level of the water is going to be changed to some man's detriment. And that is equally the basis of any reasonable ground of expostulation by one country to another, if conditions exist such as are said to be found in this case. If it is reasonably manifest that the effect of putting this proposed obstruction in the United States channel of the St. Lawrence at the Long Sault will raise the level or lower the level on the Canadian side, to the detriment of Canadian property owners, there is a reasonable ground for expostulation; and, happily in this instance, by reason of treaty arrangements, there is more than that. There is a basis upon which objection can be taken on our part that would certainly be effective. But unless there is plainly going to be such damage, there is no ground to object. Nobody is hurt, and there would be no foundation for an objection or expostulation, if we made it.
Now, let me ask hon. gentlemen to think of the situation on the ground at this place. We all know more or less about it, from our general knowledge of the geography of the country. I happen to have the advantage of personal knowledge by having been all over Sheik's island on foot and having examined this very locality. We have the main channel of the St. Lawrence and two islands in the channel-Sheik's island, wholly Canadian, the Long Sault island, wholly in the United States; the boun- * dary running in the main channel between the two islands; the United States island up-stream, but the two islands overlapping each other, for a considerable portion of their length, a channel between the United States island and the mainland of New York state, and a channel, when things were in a state of nature, between the north side of Sheik's island and the mainland of the county of Stormont. Canada has interfered with the natural condition of things at this point. lit has not left the natural channel between Sheik's island

and the mainland of Ontario open, as it was in a state of nature. Canada, for its own purposes, has had a dam built at the upper end_ of Sheik's island, which prevents the inflow into the natural channel of any water from the Long Sault rapids. Canada has appropriated that natural channel between Sheik's island and the mainland of Ontario as a part of its Cornwall canal for the purposes of navigation and incidentally for the creating of waterpower, because at the lower end of Sheik's island is another dam and the surplus water forms a mill-pond which is used for the purpose of creating power. I have never heard that Canada consulted the United States before interfering in that way with the natural condition of things at that point. Any one in Canada would have said to such a proposition: What have the United States to do about it? We are not proposing to alter the level on their side, we are not going to do them any harm, we are simply utilizing our own property, and we think we can make better use of it than by leaving it in its natural state.
Have we any more right to protest or expostulate with the United States if they propose to use the channel on their side for their own purposes and in the manner which to them may seem best? I cannot see how, either as a matter of international law, or private law, or reason, or common sense we could do so. Some company, I understand, proposes to build a dam at the foot of the channel on the American side between their island and their mainland in New York state. What is going to be the effect? Of course it will interfere with navigation at once unless, as I understand is intended by the scheme, the interests of navigation are to be protected by the construction in the dam of a lock, making the dam in that way not an impediment, but actually an advantage to navigation. The effect then will be to create a mill pond above the dam between the United States island and the main shore of New York state. If the dam is not constructed so high that it will back the water around the upper end of the United States island, but will still, notwithstanding its presence at the foot of that channel, leave the level in the mill pond not as high as the water at the head of the island, it is surely manifest there can be no effect on the level on the Canadian side. I fully concede that the moment a dam at the foot of this island is made higher than the level of water at the head of the island, it will flood the channel and interfere with the level on the Canadian side. There would be ground for expostulation, for more than expostulation, under existing treaties, if that dam were built high enough to raise the level higher than the upper end of the United States island and thus
affect the level on the Canadian side. But are we to assume that this dam will be of such a height? I cannot assume it. On what ground would we have the right to do so? The interest of the parties desiring to build the dam, according to their statement, can he perfectly well served by the building of a dam which is not high enough to back the water around the upper end of the island, and if they are limited by their charter to the construction of a dam which will not back the water above the head of the island, they cannot affect the Canadian shore, and .the interests of navigation are the only things to be considered.
That is exactly the situation under the existing treaties. The right of navigation is paramount and that right is secured. That right exists in this United States channel which it is proposed to dam, just as it exists in the old channel between Sheik's island and the mainland of Ontario which is to-day utilized as part of our Cornwall canal. The right of navigation is secured by treaty and is not proposed to be interfered with. On the contrary, it is proposed to be helped according to the plans of the promoters, and unless the right of navigation is interfered with, or the level altered on our_own side, we have, under existing treaties, no cause to obj ect.
I do not think much is to be gained by going back to the terms of the Ashburton treaty because we have a new treaty on this very subject which goes further, which governs this very situation, and which has been ratified by both countries and is in force to-day. Under the provisions of that treaty while it prohibits the construction of any obstructions in boundary waters except under certain circumstances, it impliedly gives permission to obstruct boundary waters. The provision of article three of the new Waterways treaty is to the effect that ip addition to existing obstructions, no further obstructions, whether temporary or permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line-and the whole river is a boundary water from main shore to main shore-no new obstruction on either side affecting the natural level or flow of the boundary waters on the other side of the line shall be made except by the authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada, within their respective jurisdictions and with the approval of the International Joint Commission. Now the wording of that exception plainly implies that each country, within its own jurisdiction, has the right to authorize obstructions in waters such as these. No new obstructions, it says, shall be made affecting the natural level on the other side of the line except by the authority of the United States or

the Dominion within their respective jurisdictions.


Haughton Lennox: Does my hon. friend think that that provision which deals with the question of the height of water only, supersedes article seven of the Ashburton treaty? Does that provision, just read, supersede article, seven of the Ashburton treaty? It does not seem to me that they refer to exactly the same thing.


George Perry Graham: What is article 7?


Haughton Lennox: The article my hon. friend has read, which provides that the channels of the St. Lawrence shall be equally free to the ships, boats and vessels of both parties.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have no doubt that, whatever I say, I shall see tomorrow that I have not dealt, as I should like to deal, with what has been said by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox). But, dealing with it as far as I am able to do at the moment, I would by no means say that the provisions of the recent Waterways treaty supersede those of the Ashburton treaty. Surely both can well stand together, the Ashburton treaty securing equal freedom for purposes of navigation- that is, freedom equally to the inhabitants of one country and those of the other country-in the river which constitutes the boundary, and the recent treaty providing that no new obstruction shall be put anywhere along that river on either side of the line which will have the effect of raising the level on the other side of the line, except: First, with the authority of the government of the country in which the obstruction is to be placed, and, second, with the approval of the International Joint Commission. Now, that language, I say, implies that the government of each country has the right to authorize, if it sees fit, such an obstruction as will alter the level on the other side of the line, and that obstruction, when it has been authorized by the proper government, must also receive the approval of the International Joint Commission before it can be permitted- the two things must concur. The language implies that there is a right, without any infraction of treaty obligations, on the part of either Canada or the United States, to authcrize such obstruction as may affect the level on the other side of the boundary if, in the judgment of the legislature of Canada or the United States, such obstruction is desirable. Now, we have a proposition in the Congress of the United States to authorize such an obstruction. It is entirely within their legal right; they are not infringing upon any treaty obligation by entertaining that proposition. But, if they see fit to authorize it, then, if it will affect Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
the level on the Canadian side of the boundary, it must receive the approval of the International Joint Commission before it can be permitted. That is an additional safeguard which we have secured by entering into this recent treaty. But, without it, if we had no treaty at all, we should simply be in a position where, without anything to rely upon except the natural sense of justice which should be common to all people, we were seeking to protest or expostulate with the United States in what they were proposing to do. In the circumstances which exist, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be difficult for us to frame any line of diplomatic objection or remonstrance which would have any effective foundation. It could at once be answered by the United States that, under the terms of our treaty, we have the right to consider the advisability of doing this, and you are perfectly protected by the creation of this International Joint Commission upon which you are equally represented.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff) stated that, under the Act of 1901, we had given the country the right to erect dams and utilize this power. Will the Minister of Justice please say whether he has seen this Act, and whether that statement is correct?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not know that I apprehend correctly the point the h<5n. gentleman from South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) has presented. There is a statute of 1901 to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Co. I have not examined it with any care, but, glancing over it as it has been handed to me, it appears to give power to the company to dam the St. Lawrence river-to what extent I am not able to say upon such cursory examination. I think it would be perfectly competent for the United States Congress on the one part and the Canadian parliament on the other, to authorize ihe construction of a dam in the St. Lawrence, each on its own side of the boundary, and joining at. the boundary, if the two legislatures saw fit to do so. But such a structure would at once be obnoxious to the recent treaty, even if it would not be entirelv opposed to the provisions of the Ashburton treaty, and such a structure could not have, under the recent treaty, the approval of the International Joint Commission, because not only would it be an obstruction to navigation, but it would have the effect of raising the level of the water on both sides of the boundary line.


John Graham Haggart: What I wanted to know was whether this is merely an empowering Act, granting the company the power to build these works if they secured

the right, to do so, or whether it does give them the right to build the works and use the power?


William Pugsley: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would allow me to call attention to the provision of the Act'of 1901, which authorizes the erection of certain dams, but provides that before the work shall be commenced the plans must be submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council.


John Graham Haggart: My question goes further than that. Has the country passed over to the company the right to utilize that power, or is this merely an Act enabling the company, when they get that power, to construct these works?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is correct in the latter statement ; it authorizes the company to construct these works, provided they get the necessary approval of their plans by the Governor in Council.


Robert Laird Borden: There are two distinct things. One is the conferring of corporate power upon the company to undertake this work, in other words, to declare that the undertaking of this work would be within their corporate powers. My hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) wants to know whether it is, merely that, or whether it does not further actually invest this company with the authority of the parliament of Canada to do that work in the River St. Lawrence as far south as the boundary line.


William Pugsley: I think the latter statement would give the authority of the charter correctly. There is no doubt that parliament authorized the company to construct these works in the St. Lawrence ; but it provided that before they commenced any work they must have the approval of the Governor in Council of their plans. I understand, pursuant to that authority, the company did do certain work between Sheik's island and the mainland. I think I may take this opportunity of recalling to the memory of my hon. friend, ias well as of other hon. gentlemen, that at the last session of parliament, when a Bill was introduced by my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), a Bill not proposing, as my hon. friend from Halifax seemed to think, to give to the company which vr>as then being incorporated any authority to dam the St. Lawrence, but merely creating a power transmission company, there was some anxiety upon the part of hon. members of this House with reference to the works, which the company incorporated some nine or ten years ago was authorized to carry on. The Prime Minister then gave the assurance to parliament that the government would not approve of any plans for further
obstructing the St. Lawrence until the whole matter had first been submitted to parliament, and until the approval of parliament had been obtained. And further, a little later, when the Bill was under consideration, I myself drew an amendment ; I am not sure whether it was moved by the hon. gentleman who had charge of the Bill or not ; tout at all events, it was moved and carried, and forms a part of the statute, and it is in these words:
Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to constitute an approval by parliament of any future development of water-power by erecting a dam in or across the St. Lawrence river under the chapter 111 of the statutes of 1901, intituled ' An Act to incorporate the St. Lawrence Power Company,' or otherwise; nor shall the company hereby incorporated be authorized to transmit power generated by the St. Lawrence Power Company other than the power generated by and in connection with the works already constructed by the said St. Lawrence Power Company.
There is a further provision contained in section 12, as if the assurance of the Prime Minister and the section which I have just read were not sufficient, and that further provision sets forth :
The Governor in Council shall not give his approval to the construction of any further canals, water courses, raceways, dams, wing dams, sluices or other works on the River St. Lawrence by the St. Lawrence Powder Company, under the provisions of chapter 111 of the statutes of 1901, or otherwise, nor agree to or approve of any terms or conditions respecting the diversion of water or power from Canada, the consideration and rate to be paid therefor, the location of all dams and generating plant, the reservation of power for use in Canada, the safeguarding of Canadian canals, adjacent lands and navigation, the procuring of consent thereto from the British government under the Ashburton treaty or any other treaty, unless and until the plans, specifications and all terms and conditions shall have been first submitted to and approved by parliament.
I think it is, therefore, abundantly clear, both from the assurance of the Prime Minister as to what will be the action of the government, and also by the terms of these two sections which I have read, that no approval of any works upon the Canadian side of the St. Lawrence would toe given, or could be given, until the matter had first been submitted to, and approved by .parliament. Now, I desire, Mr. Speaker, just to add a few words in reference to the observation of the leader of the opposition with regard to the Bill which was introduced at the last session, and which I have now in my hands. The hon. gentleman stated that the design of that Bill was to authorize the company to erect a dam across the St. Lawrence river. From my seat I ventured to deny that, and the hon. genfle-, man, departing from that courtesy one

would expect from a gentleman who, I think, is desirous of always being considered courteous, the hon. gentleman said it was contradicting him, as I was in the habit of contradicting, without reason and without knowledge of the facts. I desire, Mr. Speaker, to say that outside of this House certain newspapers, and certain gentlemen have sought wrongfully, most improperly, and I say wilfully, and with a view to injure certain persons to convey the impression that the design of this Bill, as introduced by my hon. friend from West Lambton, that the design of myself, and of certain other members of this House who supported that Bill, was to authorize the damming of the St. Lawrence. I say that you cannot find from beginning to end of that Bill as it was first introduced, any provision, any clause, any word, which would give authority to dam the River 'St. Lawrence, i desire to make this public statement, and to assert now- this is perhaps the first opportunity I have had during this session-that a gross wrong has been attempted in certain newspapers of this country in seeking to create the impression that the Bill as first introduced at the last session of parliament, had as its object to grant authority to dam the St. Lawrence river. I say it was, at the beginning when it was first introduced, it was during all its stages while passing through this House, it was when finally passed out of this House with the amendment, it was simply a Bill authorizing the transmission of electricity. When passed through the House it was neither less nor more than that, simply a Bill authorizing the transmission of electrical power. And, Sir, it is a curious fact that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways, in speaking on this Bill last session, referred to a water-power which either had been developed or was being developed at Waddington, upon the American side of the St. Lawrence, and said that if power could not foe obtained from any other source that power might be utilized for the distribution of electricity to the various points of eastern Ontario where people were very anxious to set electrical energy, and, that in certain remarks which were made by Mr. Beck, of the Ontario government, a leading member of the Hydro-Electric Commission, he was reported to have made the statement that the commission were at that very moment negotiating for obtaining water-power from a plant generating electricity at Waddington, upon the United States side of the St. Lawrence, they were in negotiation with the owners of that power for the purpose of obtaining electrical energy, to bring it across tire St. Lawrence, and to transmit it to various sections in the province of Ontario. I felt, Mr. Speaker, that in justice to myself, and in justice to the gentlemen who supported Mr. PUGSLEY.
the Bill which was introduced by my hon. friend from West Lambton, I shohld take an opportunity of referring to misstatements which had been made outside this House, and of correcting the error which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, forgetting, as he must have forgotten, the contents of the Bill as introduced, fell into with regard to the provisions of the Bill as first introduced last session.


Robert Laird Borden: The statement I made was absolutely and entirely correct, and I will take a later opportunity of showing that it was so.


George Perry Graham: This is a question which affects the people that I represent directly, perhaps as much as any people in the province. I think I know .the local conditions surrounding this question as well, if not better, than any man in the House, outside of the hon. member for Stormont county (Mr. Smith), this region having been my stamping ground as a young man, and I have been on these islands, the Long Sault, North Sault, South Sault, the waters contiguous to them and the land as well. As to the question which came up in the House last session, I was very anxious to have a Bill passed authorizing the construction of a transmission line. I then thought that I would be able, and I am in hopes yet that I will be able, to get power for the town of Brockville and the surrounding districts by a transmission line of some sort. I said then, and I repeat now, that I expected to get it independently of any new development at the Long Sault. There are two powers, as my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), has said, in the same condition, except that one is capable of much greater development than the other, on the St. Lawrence. One is at Waddington, opposite the village of Morrisburg in the county of Dundas. The main river Tuns to the head of Ogdenls island about three and three-quarters miles west of Morrisburg. Then it divides at the head of Rapide Plats. The main channel goes on the north side of Odgen's island ; what is known as Little river, goes on the south side between Ogden's island and the state of New York, or the town of Waddington. Many years ago authority was given in the state of New York to construct a dam there, and it was constructed without any reference to Canada, as I understand, it being altogether in United States territory and the entire stream of Little river being contiguous to the state of New York. For some years that water-power was used and then allowed to go into disuse on account of lack of transportation facilities by rail largely, the dam has been destroyed, or nearly so, and there is really no water-power to-day. It is undeveloped and any person who pro-

poses to supply power from Waddington, must remember that there is no power there to supply until it is developed by somebody with cash coming from somewhere. Now, we go down the river and we find Long Sault island. At what is known as Dickinson's Landing, or in the vicinity of it, the main channel of the Sault goes to the north and, just as in the case of Ogden's island, this island separates the St. Lawrence into the North Sault and the South Sault. The North Sault is the main channel. Hon. gentlemen forget, in discussing this question that no steamer goes down through the North Sault or the South Sault carrying any appreciable amount of freight. Large steamers use neither channel. They have to take the Canadian canal, so that, any interference with either of these channels -would not interfere one iota in so far as navigation is concerned, with the carrying a large amount of the products of the west to the east, as these products, in the large vessels, have to go through the Canadian canal. Now, we find the South Sault all in American territory. At that particular point at least seventy per cent of the North Sault is altogether in United States territory as well. We perhaps forget in discussing it, that while we have a joint share in it we must not presume at all that at this particular point Canada owns the St. Lawrence river as most of it is in the United States, especially at the point where they propose to construct this dam. All of the South Sault is in the United States just as the Little river is in the United States at Waddington. Opposite Waddington on the Canadian side we have constructed a canal running from the head of Rapide Plats to the village of Morrisburg without the consent of anybody and the government are supplying water-power from the St. Lawrence river to several industries in the village of Morrisburg and also power for the running of the waterworks at Morrisburg. When we get to Cornwall we find the same condition. Those who have not lived along the St. Lawrence cannot have the same feeling. But I have not been able to bring myself to the point where I would care to see a dam stretching across the St. Lawrence from shore to shore at the Long Sault. It strikes me as something in regard to which I would need a lot of convincing before I would consent. I want hon. gentlemen to hear that in mind because I have been criticised for the attitude that I have taken. I took this attitude, thinking that I would be able to help the people I represent to get something that they are very anxious to possess. I have said that the interests of navigation must be kept paramount. No matter what else happens the great navigation and transportation interests of the Dominion must be the first
thing that the people of Canada must look to and any power that may be developed, must be subsidiary to the greater interest of transportation. Now, Sir, having that in view, I come down to Cornwall. I find that Sheik's island is in something the same position as regards the Canadian shore as Ogden's island is at Waddington. The small stream between Sheik island and the Canadian shore probably was never navigated except by very small craft, but there was a stream running on the Canadian side.


John Graham Haggart: You are labouring under the same error that the hon. Minister of Justice was labouring under. There was a dam across. Mr. Snet-singer owned a mill there, and it was expropriated from him before the Sheik's island dam was constructed.


George Perry Graham: Mr. Snetainger owned a small mill of some kind and he owned a small dam, but it was expropriated as my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart), has said. That bears out what I am saying that the government permitted that to be done by a private company which is even worse than the government doing it themselves.


Haughton Lennox: Was it part of the St. Lawrence ?


George Perry Graham: Part of the channel of the St. Lawrence.


John Graham Haggart: It was erected before the canal was there at all.


George Perry Graham: Well, the river was there anyway, and the dam was erected by the consent of some person, showing clearly that it had been always conceded, at Wad-dinigton on the American side where the Little river was dammed by a private company and on the Canadian side at Sheik's island, where a dam was erected by a private company, that in Canadian territory, where no interests of navigation were affected, the United States had no rights and that in the United States, where navigation was not affected, the Canadian government had no rights. That has always been conceded.


Haughton Lennox: The new treaty says that that shall not be done any more.


George Perry Graham: We have made an improvement in that respect I admit. Now, I come to the Ashburton treaty. Just allow me ito look at the legal side of the question for a moment. One provision of our agreement with the United States is, that our canals shall he as free to the vessels of the United States as they are to our own vessels. That does not mean that we cannot charge both fees if we like. According to the contention of some hon. gentlemen,

we must at all times, allow their vessels to go through our canals free. It does not mean anything of the kind; it says that thev shall be equallv free, and if we see fit to reimpose a fee on vessels going through the Canadian canals, United States vessels could be charged the same fee without any infraction of the agreement with the United States^ The Ashburton treaty says that Canadian vessels on the one side and American vessels on the other shall be equally free to pass up and down.


John Graham Haggart: That was extended by the Washington treaty which made all waters of the United States free to Canadian subjects.


George Perry Graham: Yes, that is what the Ashburton treaty meant. As I have intimated. I had not any idea directly or indirectly of giving any person the right to dam the North Sault by the Bill that was introduced last year. It was merely to get a transmission line by which power that already exists could be transmitted to some of the towns that need it so very badly. Now, the South Sault is altogether on the American side and, reiterating what I have said about the North Sault, I want to say frankly that if the South Sault, which is altogether in United States territory, can be utilized to produce power for the people along the St. Lawrence and for others, without doing damage to property owners on either side of the river unless thev are fully compensated or, without injuring navigation, I am in favour of acquiescing in the project to make the proposed improvements at the South Sault.


John Dowsley Reid: Could we get a guarantee that we would get half of that power?


George Perry Graham: If we had any right under the law to have it I would insist on getting it.	.


William Pugsley: Do we give them half the power of the Cornwall canal?


George Perry Graham: No, we do not give them any of the Cornwall canal power.


John Dowsley Reid: If the power developed were used on the other side of the line I do not see where our advantage would
be.


George Perry Graham: My position would be this: I believe that we would get a good deal of that power on the Canadian side. I am not sure, because it is a matter of law, what rights we would have, but I certainly would use to the utmost any rights we might have to get for Canada some share of the power developed on even the South Sault. And if that can be done, then instead of giving away some of our natural Mr. GRAHAM.
resources we would be getting the people of the United States, to give us some of theirs. If any scheme would injure property or interfere with navigation, mark you, I would vote first, last and all the time against it. But, if it can be done otherwise, then I believe I am working in the interests of the people of the Dominion of Canada, and in the interests of my own constituents, if I could be a party to an arrangement by which it was provided that some of the power developed from the part of the river in the United States should come to Canada. I know the local conditions very'well, I know every foot of the ground, and if as has been said power can be developed on the south side without injuring our interests then, if we could get part of that power it would be to the benefit of Canada, to allow that Bill to go through the United States Congress without any remonstrance from us, even if we haye the right to remonstrate. What I want in my riding is to get power, I don't care from whom or from where if I get it it a reasonable price, and without doing injury to any interest.


John Graham Haggart: What about
the scenery?


George Perry Graham: I have never been able to convince myself that I would allow the beautiful scenery on the north side to be touched; that is the way I feel about it.


John Dowsley Reid: Hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: I have taken a great deal of interest in the matter, and I thought that perhaps it might interfere with our canals, because mark you we have a ana, on our side and the United States propose to build one on their side. I have a new man on the engineering staff of the department, who is said to be very competent, and two or three months ago I asked him to examine the situation in the vicinity of Waddington and Morrisburg, and also the Little river and the South Sault, and o report to me his candid conviction as to what effect it might have on our canals. I expected to have that report before now, and when. I get it I shall lay it on the table of the House. I do not know what this engineer's opinions are or what his report may be, but whatever it is it will be interesting to the House, and I shall submit it as soon as I get it.


John Allister Currie: In the English House of Commons whenever an international question is discussed the practice is to forget party, and to think only of the welfare of the country, and I am glad to say that this debate so far has followed that practice. As nearly as a layman can interpret the proposition which the Minister of Justice laid down in a somewhat in-

volved way, it is that every country has the right to do as it pleases in its own territory. In this instance the United States and Canada have under the Ashburton treaty surrendered their sovereign rights to permit neither nation navigating in the territorial waters of each and the same privilege is applied to another part of the international waters below Detroit. So far as the consideration of this question is concerned the maintenance of unobstructed navigation should be paramount for the two countries, but when we examine the navigation routes along the Great Lakes we find that wherever there is a strategic point the United States government has endeavoured to short-cut it, create a deeper channel than we have, and so lead the business to their territory. At the Sault on the St. Mary's river the Americans have short-cut a channel through what is known as Mud or Hay lake, and thus diverted the traffic through their territory. All that traffic of ours from Lake Superior comes down through territory over which they have sovereign rights, and which they can close against us whenever it suits them. We cannot bring a vessel drawing more than twelve feet of water from Lake Superior to Lake Huron unless through their territorial waters. On the Detroit river we find that the American government has seized another strategic point, and they have within the last few years proceeded to dear a very large canal at what they call the Lime Kiln Crossing. They have erected large dams there and they have virtually ruined the navigation of the Detroit river in Canadian waters. There is at the present time before the Canadian government an application-which has not been laid on the table of the House, and which I think we should have laid on the table of the House -asking for the right to dam the Canadian side of the river which would stop navigation entirely on the Canadian side, so that all navigation would be in American waters. I ask the senior minister present if that is not so?


William Pugsley: That is not so.


John Allister Currie: Has not the American government asked this government for permission to dam the waters of the Detroit river at a point called by the sailors Bobalong island?


William Pugsley: When I said that it was not so, I understood the hon. gentleman to say that they had asked for authority to completely shut off the navigation on the Canadian side of tlje river.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman is a beautiful juggler of words.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has no right to make such a remark. What they had applied for was authority to
carry a dam from a point in the middle of the stream down to Bois Blanc island.


John Allister Currie: That is exactly what I said. The hon. Minister of Public Works is an adept at making statements to this House which, while we must accept them in the fullest sense, we must accept with a mental reservation. There is no doubt that they did not apply for power to put in a dam which would totally destroy navigation in Canadian waters.


William Pugsley: As the hon. gentleman said they had.


John Allister Currie: I have no doubt that motor boats and canoes could still go down the river, but so far as large vessels are concerned, the work would entirely destroy the channel. No protest was made by this government against that work, which is a work under the War Department of the United States. The greatest danger to this country lies in this, that that channel is entirely in American waters, and they could close it completely to us at that point, just as they could close the channel in Mud lake. Now, what is that sovereign right of ours at the Long Sault which they are attacking? They are attempting to establish a work which will divert traffic from our canal. They intend to put in a dam and a canal with 20 or 25 feet of water, according to the plans which were laid on the table of this House last session by the Minister of Public Works, which plans showed the damming of the river, although the hon. gentleman denies that to-day. His own words at that date also showed that that was the intention of the company.


William Pugsley: I must correct the hon. gentleman. He is making an erroneous statement. He says that I denied that the plans which had been submitted by the company showed a proposal to dam the St. Lawrence river. I never gave any such denial. On the contrary, at the last session of parliament, I stated that the plans submitted by the company did show a proposal to dam the river, but that the government had not approved of those plans.


John Allister Currie: I am glad that I am getting the hon. gentleman down to earth in this matter. I will bring him further down to earth, and will quote from ' Hansard ' his very words in this House, stating that the intention of the company was to dam the river, although he denies that he said so last session. This is what appears in ' Hansard ':
Mr. 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?
Mr. 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.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman permit me?


John Allister Currie: If the hon. minister will wait till I get through, he can answer all I 'say. When this question of damming the river now comes before this House, the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister state that the first authority was the Ashburton treaty-that was the primary rule with reference to this channel. The Minister of Eailways and Canals endorsed that. The inference from the involved sentences of the Minister of Justice was that the new treaty was supplementary to the old treaty-that while the old treaty dealt with the right of navigation, the new treaty dealt with the right of developing power, and that anything done either by this parliament or by the Congress of the United States must be approved by the Waterways Commission. I will ask the House if that impression, was not left on the House? But,, strange to say, we had that great constitutional authority, the Minister of Public Works, saying last year something different, in answer to Mr. Sharpe:


Mr.   S.@: Sharpe. What power has the International Waterways Commission to deal with this matter?
Mr. Pugsley. They simply advise.
Now, what protection has this country or the United States from the Waterways Commission in this matter, if we are to accept the word of the hon. Minister of Public Works?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is speaking of a different commission altogether. The Minister of Justice referred to the new commission under the treaty which was ratified last session-the International Boundaries Commission.


Mr. CUEEIE (Simcoe).: Then perhaps the Minister of Public Works will tell us what authority the Boundary Commission will have in this matter. Will they have a veto on these plans or on the work if it is authorized by this parliament or by the United States Congress? Now, Sir, with reference to this matter, let us be practical and have a little common sense about it. I always like to hear the Minister of Eailways talk, because he always Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).
takes a broad view, and it took a good deal of worming and twisting to satisfy his conscience that this work would be in the interest of the public or any one else, except the company that made aluminum. If it is necessary to have that work done to develop power at that point, I think the parliament of Canada and the government of New York state or the United States Congress should cause one of their various commissions to consider the matter seriously, and to see that if the power were developed, the rights of the public would be conserved, and we would not. be turning over to some corporation a valuable franchise which it would immediately proceed to capitalize for $50,000,000 or $60,000,000. If there be anything to be got out of this, if it be necessary to have this water-power developed, let both countries jointly agree upon a plan upon which the development shall take place and decide the quantity of power each country shall have and the price to be paid. The whole trouble is simply this: Every one knows that, an attempt has been made here to rob the public treasury in some way. The whole fight over this question has been due to the fact that a corporation in the United States-one of the most powerful there-which has a monopoly of a certain metal now of very great use in the electrical art, has been endeavouring to seize all the cheap water-powers of both countries for its own use. Let me tell the Minister of Justice that with the increasing use of that metal which that company produces, there will be no hope, should they develop that power, of his having any spare power for Broekville, because the company will use it all for their own purposes in the turning out of aluminum. Would it not be better to keep before the House and country the rights of navigation. The Minister of Public Works has been up to the shoulders fighting' for the company which desires to get this water-power. He has resented the imputation that he has been endeavouring _ to boost this company, and to-day he denied that he ever wished to dam the river or do anything of that kind. Well, I think I could satisfy the House, from his own remarks, that he did, last year, try to have the river dammed, and the company which intended doing this is the same company which is seeking their charter in Washington.


Mr. C. J. DOHERTY (St. Anne, Montreal).: The announcement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister early in this debate that the government had taken means to communicate with the American authorities with the view of remonstrating against the adoption of the measure now going through Congress, would justify us

in assuming that the government had taken the position that our rights were being infringed upon, or were in danger of being infringed upon by the proposed legislation. But according to the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) we have no rights in connection with this channel, and no ground upon which to remonstrate or expostulate. That seems to me rather a surprising statement. If the government take the position that even if the channels mentioned in the Ashburton treaty are being closed we have no grounds upon which to remonstrate, I do not think we can expect much advantage from the intervention which the right hon. the Prime Minister told us he was seeking to bring about, through the British ambassador, in this matter now pending before the American Congress. I understand the Minister of Justice to argue that there was1 no need for us to go back to the Ashburton treaty in order to ascertain our rights, because these were to be found in the later boundary water treaty. Subsequently, however, I understood him to say, in answer to a question, that the latter treaty did not supersede the former, and that the provisions of both are to be taken as equally standing. I submit that in order to ascertain what our rights are with regard to these particular channels, we must go to the Ashburton treaty and we will not find them anywhere else. It is perfectly true that after the Ashburton treaty had provided that the channels in the St. Lawrence on both sides of the Long Sault and Barnhart's island shall be equally free and open to the vessels and commerce of both countries, our later treaty provides in a general way that the navigation of the boundary waters shall remain free for the purposes of commerce and navigation to the inhabitants of both countries. But that general provision in the later treaty does not in any way supersede or affect the clear and express provision of the Ashburton treaty with regard to these two particular channels. If I am not greatly mistaken it is an elementary principle in the interpretation of laws and contracts that general dispositions do not derogate from special provisions made to regulate and govern and determine specific eases. I take it, therefore, that notwithstanding the general enactment contained in our last boundary treaty, that treaty does not in any way modify the provision of the Ashburton treaty with regard to these particular channels. In the face of that provision. I must confess that I heard with considerable astonishment the Minister of Justice lav down the principle that we were not concerned in and would have no right to interfere in what was being done on the American side of the river unless there was a question of raising the level of
the water on our side. It is true, he added, that these gentlemen on the other side, who are asking for this power, had declared that they were going to provide in some other way for navigation. They do not deny that these channels, which the treaty says shall be open, are to be barred, but they say they are going to provide for navigation in some other way, and the Minister of Justice, therefore, concludes that we have no ground to expostulate.
Well, in the first place, it seems perfectly clear that what is being done is in violation of the express terms of the treaty. The channels are being barred. I do not suppose that it would be argued that to be equally closed to the people of both countries would mean the same as to be equally open to the people of both countries. I quite agree with the Minister of Railways (Mn. Graham) that the fact that the canals are to be equally free to both parties does not prevent tolls being charged, so long as those tolls do not discriminate against the people of one country. But, on the other hand, I do not suppose that he would carry the argument so far as to conclude that, provided the channels are equally closed to both parties, the provision of the treaty would be complied with.


George Perry Graham: That loses me in the law.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman mind if I asked him a question? Because, this is a very interesting point.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly not.


William Pugsley: Suppose that, on the Canadian side of the St. Lawrence, there were no Cornwall canal. Suppose we said: We are going to improve the navigation, for there are only rapids there with a depth of six or seven feet of water; so we will make a lock and give a depth of twenty feet, and that lock wll be equally open to both countries; would the United States have a right to complain of that? Per contra, suppose the government of the United States says that the South Sault has a depth of only eight or ten feet-my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and 'Canals says it is not so much as that- and they decide to build a lock that will afford a depth of twenty feet and will leave it equally open to both countries; could we complain of that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Now, with regard to the first question, it seems to me that before there is any occasion to answer that question, one would want to know whether there was a channel, properly speaking on our side. Because that winch is uealt with by the treaty is not, in general terms, the right to navigate the waters anywhere. We have particular channels which are indicated as existing, and it is said that

these channels shall remain open to the ships of both parties. That is not a general declaration that the parties shall be free to navigate in any part. Now, I am willing to take the statement as to the fact of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) or the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) as to whether there was any channel on our side which could come within that description. The channels mentioned there, the channels on both sides of Long Sault islands and of Barnhart island, if I understand rightly, are on the American side. The treaty is dealing expressly with channels that are on the American side, actually existing channels, and it provides that they are to be open to us. Now, somebody goes to the American Congress and oays:	We want
leave to close up all these channels, but we will give you something as good. Now-


William Pugsley: Pardon me. What the Minister of Justice was referring to particularly was the closing of one channel- not of both-between the ooum Sault and the mainland. That, as I understand it, is not the main channel for navigation purpose.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But I understand that it is one of the channels mentioned. And I am told that the legislation authorizing the making of a dam from the mainland on the American side to the boundary takes in both of these channels mentioned in the treaty.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Justice did not deal with that feature.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, he did.


William Pugsley: No, he said the channel was between Long Sault island and Barnhart's island.


Haughton Lennox: And also one to the north.


Charles Joseph Doherty: At one stage, if I understood him, he was proceeding to show that the barring was to be done only in the south channel, and argued that unless it was shown that the water -would be dammed back so as to raise the level on The Canadian side, we had no standing ground for remonstrance or expostulation. In other words, here it is publicly and openly proposed to close the channels which, under the treaty, are always to be open to us, and the minister tells us that the matter does not coi,cern us, and we have no standing ground if we desire to remonstrate. The Minister of Public Works ' asks:	Suppose they were going to alter
one of these channels and improve navigation, should we have the interest to object? Certainly we should not have the interest to object,-whatever our right might be- if it were absolutely established that the change was going to improve navigation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But that is precisely the matter that the Congress of the United States is undertaking to determine. And we are not concerned-I understand the Minister of Justice to say-if the Bill provides that a channel shall be made for navigation.


William Pugsley: I was dealing in my question, wholly with the South Sault, which, I understand, is not the main channel and not a good channel.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a splendid channel.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Whether good or bad, here is our contract. It deals with the south channel, whatever it may be, and it declares that it shall be equally open to both countries.


William Pugsley: Equally free.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think I made a mistake. No, the treaty says ' shall be equally free and open '. If that is not clear, and if it is not clearly applicable to the south channel, then, of course, I do not understand English. But all this is being done ex parte; and when we ask if the government is doing anything about it, we are first given to understand that the government is doing something about it, and this is followed by a statement of the Minister of Justice that, for his part, he does not see that we have any ground to remonstrate or expostulate. And I ask, what good results can we expect from intervention if the government is going into court with a feeling, and that publicly announced, that it has not a leg to stand upon? I do not think the country will gain benefit from the intervention. But, I say that, far from not having ground to stand upon, we have the prima facie ground that our agreement is being violated. It may be true that these gentlemen, or the American government, are in the position to supply something that will be a remedy of the wrong. But it will only be a remedy of the wrong; they first create the wrong by violating the agreement. And I do not understand that, as between parties making an agreement that a thing shall be done in a particular way, it remains open for one to say: I win not do what we agreed to do, but, without consulting you I will do something contrary to our agreement, but I will provide something just as good. At this stage we are vitally interested in having our rights put before the American authorities in the strongest possible way. And with all respect-and it is with great respect-and with all deference to the opinion of the Minister of Justice on a question of law or a question of common sense (if it can be said that there is any difference between these two) I submit that we have a very strong case indeed to put before that Congress. I would like to point out something further. The Min-

ister of Public Works asked me a question a few moments ago as to whether, if we did certain things on our side of the water, the American authorities could object. Now, I think I could not answer him better than in his own words. The same question came up last year as to the extent of our rights on our side of this water and the Minister of Public Works said then:
I recognized that this parliament could not pass -any legislation which would authorize a dam to be constructed in the river without putting in the condition that it should he subject to the approval of the executive gov-ermment of the United States.
Now, either under this. agreement we do not stand on a footing of equality ; or, if the executive government of the United States has a word to -say as to our erecting a dam on our side of the river, clearly we must have a word to say about their erecting -a dam on their side of the river. There is another consideration. I gathered from what the First Minister said that in this matter we were afforded some protection under the Boundary Waters Commission by reason of the fact- that whatever the American Congress did with regard to authorizing works on its own side, it could not be carried out without approval of the Boundary Waters Commission. In that respect I am quite in agreement with the Minister of Justice ; we are afforded, as I understood him to -say, absolutely no protection in this matter under the boundaries treaty unless the work that is -being.done there throws the waters -back so as to raise the level of our side. So far as it may be an absolute block to navigation, the Boundary Waters Commission wont have a word to say about it; their powers wont come into play unl-ess the work not only stops navigation, but throws the water back so as to raise the level on oui side. I understand that I am not differing at all from the Minister of Justice in that regard. That I think is manifestly clear, from looking at the clause which provides for the intervention of the Boundary Waters Commission, that is clause 3. It is as clear as anything can be, and if it were susceptible of being made more clear than it is, I think the Minister of Justice, in expounding it with that clearness which is habitual to him, has made it so;
It is agreed that in addition to the uses, constructions and diversions heretofore permitted or hereafter provided for by special agreement between the parties hereto, no further or other uses or obstructions or diversions, whether temporary or permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line

This is the important part :
-affecting the natural level or flow of boundary waters on the other side of the line, shall be -made except by authority of the
United States or the Dominion of Canada within their respective jurisdictions, and with the approval as hereinafter provided of a joint committee to be known as the International Joint Commission.
So that the power of this International Joint -Commission comes into play only as far as an obstruction may affect the level of the water or the flow of water on our side. But so long as our objection rests upon a complaint that what has been done already, or may be done under this legislation of congress, is an obstruction of navigation, the Boundary Waters Commission will not have a word to say about it and we are entirely without protection save in so far as we may be protected by expostulation or remonstrance, either before or subsequent to the passing of this legislation. It seems to me, assuming the only injury to be done is to navigation, that this -much vaunted treaty with this additional -protection-, will give us absolutely no protection at all.


William Pugsley: What does my hon friend think of article 9? Would not that cover the -ground?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The high contracting parties further agree that any other questions or matters of difference arising between them involving the rights, obligations or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other, along the common frontier between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, shall he referred from time to-time to the International Joint Commission for examination and report whenever either the government of the United States or the government of the Dominion of Canada shall request that such questions or matters of difference be so referred.
I thought the Minister of Justice had only cited article 3 as applicable, and I still think it is the only -article that gives us any recourse in this matter. The general provision- here is for submitting all other questions that may arise, 1 any other questions or matters of difference.' But article 3 has determined how you will submit -questionsU-hat have regard to obstructions to navigation, and as the Minister of Justice very correctly said, article 3 necessarily implies that so long as such obstruction does not affect the flow of water, there is nothing to submit to the Boundary Commission. As I said, article 3 settles how and when all matters regarding obstructions in navigable rivers shall be submitted to the Boundary Commission. The other article makes provision that other matters not dealt with in that particular section, may he submitted, but does not affect the express limitation with regard to obstructions in navigable waters. So I	think we	are more than
justified, on this side of the House, in being exceedingly anxious with regard to
[DOT]2927

the fate of that legislation which is now before the American congress. I do not need to insist upon the immense importance of this matter to Canada as a whole, and particularly its immense importance to Montreal. And after all, what is important to the city of Montreal is important to the whole of Canada, as Montreal stands at the head of ocean navigation, and at the foot of what we have heretofore called in land navigation, which inland navigation, it does seem to me, may be most seriously affected by any interference with the flow of the St. Lawrence at this or at any other point. I would earnestly urge that the government reconsider their view about the helplessness of our position, and that they do give to Canada the benefit of their 'best endeavours to impress upon the American congress that we have rights, and that they are entitled to be respected.
At six o'clock. House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



SUPPLY-INDUSTRIAL MERGERS.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier) moved, m amendment to the motion for supply:
That the recent mergers of heretofore competing industries and the issue of securities i eslilting therefrom should he the subject of public investigation, with a view of ascertaining how far such mergers or the methods of carrying them out affect the public interest, eithei as causing continuing high prices for the commodities produced, as damaging the reputation of Canadian securities abroad or further as restricting the banking facilities or the country.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you left the chair at six o'clock I rose to piesent an amendment to the motion now before the House for the House to go into Committee of Supply. I did not expect to have to present this motion to-day, but as i was informed yesterday that it suited the convenience of the government to proceed with it at once, I preferred to avail myself of this opportunity rather than to wait and fortify myself with further information upon a question as important as the one which I think this motion presents. Mr. Speaker, there has always been, at least for some time, a very great interest manifested in mergers, in concentrations into one company of various industries hitherto operating independently. What is the reason of that interest? In the first place, stock markets, as a rule, are affected by all movements which lead up to the merger of companies, to concentrations which are generally preceded bv variations in the stocks of the companies interested. In the second place, the merging of companies Mr. DOHERTY.
adds new securities to the exchanges and transactions, indeed, are, as a rule, very numerous and extremely animated. Finally, a merger raises always the important question of whether the commodities produced by the merging industries will either increase or lower in price. In fact, as a general rule, as the House is aware, mergers give rise to a very considerable quantity of speculation, and that is one feature of these mergers which I think it is necessary for the House and the country to he informed about. As a rule, they are productive of very considerable profits to the promoters. How are these profits obtained? Generally by the appropriation, under favourable circumstances, by the promoters of what is called watered stock, or shares in the merging company, resulting from over-capitalization, representing in reality no actual value, but, after the merger, indistinguishable from the rest of the shares and consequently having, it may be, a very considerable market value, though beaind this watered stock there is no actual valre. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, this merging of companies is quite a modern feature in our industrial life. The tendency of rival industries to-day is to join their interests and to thus unite in the management and marketing of their products, and this tendency, manifested very intensely in the United States, has now become very general in our own country. In the United States some members of this House have, no doubt, followed the circumstances attending the organization of the great oil merger and of the iron industry, and know what very serious objections have been raised in that country to the operations which attended these gigantic mergers. In our own country, for about ten years, we have been the witnesses of the merging of a number of industrial companies, leading up to the unification, or concentration, of these companies into one single company. I do not wish to detain the House at any great length upon this feature of the motion, because I think that every hon. member must have some knowledge of the extent and magnitude of these merging operations during the last decade. Nevertheless, I would like to give a few facts to the House, a few figures, to justify the proposition made by me that these operations have now reached an extent and a magnitude, irrespective of the consequent good or had that may attend them, that iustifv entirely my drawing the attention of the House to their nature and to their possible results. I wish to quote, Mr. Speaker, from the Canadian Annual Finance Review of April 10 a few figures, and in doing so I would scarcely feel justified in fatiguing the House by citing textually all the figures which I have here, and which go to make up a partial

statement showing the immense capitalization of these companies. I will, therefore, with your permission, and, I hope with the approval of the House, give only the leading figures and hand this statement immediately to ' Hansard,' for the reading of the entirety of it would take, I think, too much of -the time of the House. The statement is as follows:- *
Authorized. Issued. Amalgamated Asbestos Corporation, Limited-
Capital	stock-Com..$	8,125,000 $ 8,125,000	00Pref. .	1,875,000	1,875,000	00Bonds	
15,000,000
Belmina Consolidated Asbestos Co., Ltd.-
Capital	stock-Com...	2,000,000
Pref..	600,000
Bonds	 300,000
The Black Lake Consolidated Asbestos Co.,
Ltd.-
Capital	stock-Com...	3,000,000
Pref..	1,000,000
Bonds	 1,500,000
Canada Cement Company,
Limited-
Capital stock-Com... 19,000,000 Pref.. 11,000,000
Bonds	 8,000,000
The Canadian Coloured Cotton Mills Co.,
Ltd.-
Capital authorized .. 5,000,000 Bonds (authorized and
issued)	 2,000,000
Canadian Consolidated Rubber Co., Ltd.-
Capital stock-Com... 3,000,000 Pref.. 2,000,000
Bonds	 2,600,000
Dominion Iron and Steel Company Ltd.-
Capital stock (authorized)	 30,000,000
Common (subscribed
and paid-up)	
Preferred (subscribed
and paid-up)	
Bonds-1st mortgage..
Consolidated mortgage	
Cape Breton real estate	
Dominion Textile Limited-
Capital stock-Com...
Pref..
Bonds-4 series	
Montmorency.
The Ogilvie Flour Mills Co., Limited-
Capital Stock-Com...
Pref..
Bonds	
The Montreal, Light,
Heat and Power Co.-
Capital authorized and
paid up	
Bonds-1) per cent..
5 per cent. ..
7,500,000 00
1,700,000 00
500.000	00
200.000	00
3.000.	000 00
1.000.	000 00 1,000,000 00
13.500.000	00
10.500.000	00 5,000,000 00
2,700,000 00
2,000,000 00
2,796,695 00 1,959,455 00 *2,541,300 00
Co.,
	20,000,000	00
	5,000,000	00
8,000,000	*7,414,000	0020,000,000	15,840,000	00*17,500	007,500,000	*5,000,000	002,500,000	*1,858,113	003,011,941	67450,000	002,500,000	2,500,000	002.000,000	2,000,000	001,750,000	1,750,000	0017,000,000	17,000,000	007,500,000	6,787,000	004.000,000	3,355,000	00
Authorized. Issued.
Quebec Railway, Light, Heat and Power Co., Ltd.-
Capital			9,500,000 00
Bonds			4,945,000 00
Quebec Railway,	Light	
and Power Co.-		
Capital-Com..	.. .. 2,500,000	2,500,000 00Pref..	.. .. 1,000,000	750,000 00Bonds	2,500,000 00Totals..	.. ..$214,750,000 $168,076,004 67	* Outstanding.	t Issued.	
Thus we have for these twenty companies or so an authorized capital of $214,750,000, of which there has been issued over $168,000,000. This shows the extent of the interest involved; and had I pursued this inquiry further, I have no doubt that I would have been able to extend the list and bring up the capitalization of these special companies to about $300,000,000. Indeed, in an exhaustive and very interesting speech which the hon. Minister of Labour delivered on the 10th of April last, when he moved this House into committee on his Combines Bill, he himself enumerated a considerable number of companies which are not mentioned in this list. So that it is proper, I think, to say that the interest involved in these mergers amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars, and therefore it is very interesting to the public, and particularly to us in this House, to become cognizant of some of the details connected with the organization of such immensely capitalized companies. When an industrial enterprise is in the hands of a firm, and the capital of the firm has been partly lost, it is written off. On the other hand, if the capital is increased, it is because the partners in the firm have left their earnings in the business. The claim of such businesses to special protection, as a rule is, or ought to be, founded on the actual cost of the production of their product. The loss of capital on the part of firms doing business is never admitted to the consideration of parliament when parliament fixes the protective duties. The case of a joint stock company, however, is manifestly a different matter. It is the opening of the capital account which settles the amount on which dividends are expected. As the actual capital in the business goes up or goes down, it does not as a rule bear a relation to the real capital in the business. And the balancing of the books of such companies is in a sense false. By that I mean that the nominal capital of the company as a liability has to be _ balanced by its assets, and these often include the good-will of the business and other fictitious items. Consequently while these companies claim protection upon the cost of production, this cost is



always made to include interest on the capital, though this has sometimes in part been lost or has been issued for good-will, and very often also for tangible considerations and at a very large discount.
Having drawn this distinction between firms entering industrial life, and joint stock companies, let us view for a moment how new enterprises enter into the industrial field. Is it not a fact that, as a rule, on account of the risks involved in a new enterprise, it is often necessary that those who run these risks should get their interest in the enterprise at somewhat less than the nominal value. In some why or other it is arranged to issue stock at a discount. This is frequently done. In some cases there seems some justification for such a proceeding. It may be a proper proceeding on account of the risks involved, or the temporary condition of the money market, and the difficulty of procuring the funds necessary to start the enterprise. There is therefore some justification in the apparent values being in reality greater* than the real material assets of the company at the time of the starting of the enterprise.
The case of mergers of existing enterprises is somewhat different. There can be no objection to a fair conversion into capital of the value of trade-marks and patents, which is often the object of the merging of different companies. But when you come to consider the fixing of a protective or customs tariff, it would seem that we should adopt as a measure the percentage which is necessary to insure the maintenance in activity of only the real actual capital involved in the enterprise and also the maintenance of the labour necessary to carry it on, which has been created by the industry. In fixing that protective or customs tariff, you are surely not to consider in any way the payment of dividends _ or returns upon a fictitious capital which has not been at any time really invested in the business.
Now, what happens at the time of the creation of an industry in our country, and of the willingness on the part of parliament to give it some encouragement by a protective tariff? This happens, that a protection is given slightly in excess of what is absolutely necessary-why? On account of the risks involved in the starting of a new enterprise, in order to induce people to go in, and, instead of provision being made for a gradual reduction of the protective duties necessitated by the starting of the enterprise, the duty is kept up. Then, what happens?
Earnings are considerable; the industry becomes prosperous and generally affords ample dividends. In the face of these earnings, as a rule, competition is provoked But the capital is increased, and so there is a reduction of the rate of dividend from Mr. MONK.
ten or eight to five or four, and it is expected in that way to avoid competitions. Nevertheless, competitors will enter the field if they are aware that conditions are such that with keen attention money may be made. If, in cases of that kind, protection diminished by degrees, this probably would not happen, or else these competitors would, under the necessities of the case, either drop out or diminish their output. But the maintenance of the protective duties tends to increase and intensify the conditions I have described. The next stage is that arrangements are made for fixing prices. But, as you are aware, under legislation passed last session, to do this directly has become difficult if not impossible, and certainly exposes those who enter into such arrangements to prosecution under the law. Other devices are resorted to. You have a common sales agent, which diminishes the expense of placing the products upon the market. Or you have division of districts. But in spite of these methods to protect profits, competition goes on, new competitors crowd into the market; anti then the temptation to merge becomes very great. Mergers in themselves, per se, are not to be condemned. They give good results in many respects. They give to the industries concerned one management; they concentrate; they enable the companies that are brought together to secure the best officers by spending very considerable in that direction _and the best experts to work the industry; they simplify the marketing; they result in many other economies which in themselves are not to be condemned. It is to be noted also that not a single company is exposed to the operation of the law passed last year by this parliament. There can be no charge of combination amongst traders to fix prices where there is only one company. In such cases the operation of that law becomes impossible. And, indeed, I would, at this stage, call this to the attention of the House, that, in these very considerable mergers that have lately taken place, you do not find anything upon which you can base a suit or prosecution under the Act against combines. They have evidently carefully guarded against that. But there would be no necessity for it, since _ a merger is not a combination of companies for the fixing of prices. Now, the necessity or utility of a merger having become apparent, what is the next proceeding? As a rule in these operations-I am speaking of the facts as we learn them from the public prints and from what we hear on the street- those who are engaged in the industries themselves are the first to see in the transactions which will tend to a merger the opportunity for very profitable speculation. Mergers, under the conditions under which they are affected cannot be efficiently carried out without the assistance of institu-

tions that command large capital. It is found necessary in many cases, by the promotors of these mergers, in order to overcome the objections of those who are interested in these different industries who are unwilling to see the combination effected, to operate upon the market and depress the securities of existing companies. It is also necessary, sometimes, in order to overcome opposition for the promoters to win over, with some generosity, those opponents who threaten to impede the evolution of the companies into one company. In spite of these obstacles, there remains still opportunity of very large profit. In what? In the issuing of common stock. Let me give an example illustrative of what I have been describing. Take, for instance, a group of concerns worth, let us assume, exactly $1,000,000, irrespective of protective duties, the existence of which might enhance the value of a concern as their reduction would diminish it. These concerns are in the condition to which I referred a few moments ago. They have been organized; they have lived; competition has come along. But the profits are considerable. They would be capitalized, on the institution of a merger, at, say, $3,000,000; you would have $1,000,000 of bonds secured by mortgage; $1,000,000 of preferred stock, and $1,000,000 of common stock. These securities being provided, how would they be handled? As a general rule-I speak subject to correction by those who know more, perhaps, about these operations than I have been able to learn- to settle with the holders of the existing concerns you would have to provide cash or its equivalent, a first mortgage, bonds, or preferred stock. It is necessary to carry on considerable dealings with the individuals who are holders of the original concern, and with groups in order to get control, for without control it is impossible to finally carry out the merger. It is here that the large financial institutions come in. They underwrite the bonds, we will not say at par, but, in this instance, let us say at 95.
If the bonds are not disposed of otherwise, they are placed with the bank which underwrites them to say at 95. But there are sub-underwriters, men behind who are the promoters, who sub-underwrite the issue at a slight advance over the bank's figures, and it is this slight advance which constitutes the bank's profit. In many instances, the directors of these banks and the directors of the comnanies that are about to be merged, form themselves into a group or syndicate, and it is this syndicate which sub-underwrites the bonds. Common stock is offered to the bank in order to induce it to underwrite the bonds. The bank, therefore, in return for 95 per cent which it pays for the bonds, gets $100 bonds and say 75 per cent of common stock. What be- I 931
comes of these securities? The sub-underwriters take over the bonds and common stock at a slight advance and endeavour to dispose of the bonds and naturally keep as much as possible of the common stock. Then how will the vendors, the original holders, be settled with? How will you provide the working capital? That is provided out of the preference shares which are not wanted for the vendors. Out of the money produced by the bonds you pay the vendors, you pay then with preference shares, and out of what is left you provide working capital. Take the illustrative case just referred to. We will take $250,000 of preference stock for the vendor which will leave $750,000 preference stock for the immediate needs of the new company and which will leave $250,000 of common stock. This common stock is gradually disposed of by the underwriters and mostly by the sub-underwriters. It is hawked about and given as a bonus. Three shares of preference stock and one of common stock are given for $300. Let us look at the result. Out of an issue of securities of $3,000,000 there is realized from the bonds $750,000, from the preference stock $250,000 for the vendor and $750,000 for working capital, and the common stock is given as a bonus for distribution among the promoters. I am not here to offer any opinion upon the moral aspect of a transaction of that kind. Indeed most of those who carry on these operations are looked upon as men of strong moral views in business matters. They are generally philanthropists, interested in good works and are pillars of their churches; but I must say I do not see anvthing particularly wrong in the operation if you leave out of consideration the duties that must be kept up. I see no particular harm except that it results in a number of people acquiring, under the auspices of powerful institutions that lend their aid to these transactions, securities behind which therg is no real value. From the point of view of public interest, which is the one I desire to urge here, there are two serious objections. One of the results of this system of carrying on a business is the creation at on.ce of a strong interest for the maintenance of duties in such a way that dividends will be insured upon all this watered stock which represents in reality no real value. There is a strong interest created among people of powerful influence to see that the duties should not be reduced to the absolute real value and need of those industries, but to keep them at such a figure as will insure dividends being paid upon merely apparent values. Another public interest is this? Our banks, which are engaged in these large operations, are obliged necessarily to tie un a considerable share of their funds. Why? In order to furnish these advances which are always large, and is it not apparent that they ne-

the government and the public would know what amount of the bank's capital has gone into these special merger operations. As I view it, these operations are not in harmony with the operations generally contemplated for banks. Banks that are forbidden by the banking law to loan or advance on mortgages, by the interposition _ of trust companies that hold these bonds, in reality make advances which are secured by a mortgage, an operation which is forbidden by their charter. It is a singular thing that money has (been easy in all the countries of the world this year, but in Canada the market has been tight. Has this been caused by the amount of capital involved in these operations ? Some people who know, are inclined to think so. Money has been tighter here than elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House for the time I have taken in exposing this matter, which I consider very important. From words which have fallen from my right hon. friend the Prime Minister upon another occasion, one would suppose that a motion of this kind is a want of confidence motion. But surely that interpretation, with all respect, is not a proper one. The term ' want of confidence motion ' is not properly applicable to a motion made on going into committee of supply; that is to say, it does not apply, in my estimation, more to such a motion than to any other motion. Want of confidence attaches to any motion the result of which is to prove' that the government has lost the confidence of the House. It may occur on a private Bill, it may occur on any government measure, it may occur on a motion apparently indifferent, but the result of which is to express to the government that the House has no more confidence in them. It may result without the expression of any vote at all. Motions made at this stage of the- proceedings are always made for a redress of grievances, and it is quite open to the government either to accept these motions and to redress the grievance, or to express its own opinion that a grievance has been made out, and that it will entertain the demand without their (being such fatal results attached to the motion. Upon one occasion in England, if my memory serves me right, Mr. Gladstone,, when Prime Minister, resigned upon an insignificant vote in Supply, where the committee refused to gTant a small sum of two hundred pounds in the army estimates. Why ? Because Mr. Gladstone considered that it was, on the part of the House, an expression of -want of confidence in the army reforms which his government had undertaken. In 1896 the government of that day resigned without the House meeting. I insist upon this, because I did not present the motion as a motion of want of confidence. I present it at the proper time
for the redress of grievances before we go into Supply, and I would 'be very glad if the government, in view of the importance of the matter, would state its willingness to entertain the proposal and to make thg investigation which is called for by a large number of people-not perhaps influential and powerful people, but people who have been affected by these operations and who think that an investigation is necessary. Upon that assurance from the government I would willingly withdraw the motion. I insist upon this, because I do not wish to be reproached with having presented this motion at this stage, taking the view of our parliamentary practice which I do.


Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour).: Mr. Speaker, before attempting to reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) I would like" to ask him just what form of investigation he has' in mind when he speaks ot the desirability of the _ subject of recent mergers being publicly inquired into.


Mr. MONK.: It seems to me that a Royal Commission composed of competent men would be the proper way to make a public investigation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In proposing to the House the appointment of a Royal Commission, or the appointment of any body, to conduct an investigation into such a large question as that of" mergers, it is rather important that the reasons which are given in support of a suggestion of this kind should be made apparent. I have carefully listened to my hon. friend during the course of his remarks and it seems to me that he has succeeded admirably in disclosing to the House the intricate and complicated methods by which mergers are brought into being, by which they are financed and by which their operations are carried on. But the admirable speech which the hon. gentleman has made, it appears to me, has given us the best of reasons why it is not necessary to hold a public inquiry in order to disclose these complicated methods. He has taken one of the most difficult of modern problems and he has shown, I think clearly to everybody, that it is a many sided question and that there are many considerations which have to_ be taken into account in dealing with a subject of that kind. He has done this so well that I think his own speech is sufficient to obviate the necessity of conducting an inquiry to discover these methods and to ascertain the possible effects upon all concerned. However, in the motion which has been put forward the hon. member has given three reasons in particular why he thinks a public investigation of this kind should take place. He suggests that it should take place, first, in order that the government or the country may ascertain to what extent these mergers are responsible for causing continuing high prices for the commodities


Frederick Debartzch Monk: produced; second, to what extent they are responsible for damaging the reputation of Canadian securities abroad and, third, restricting the banking facilities of this country. In asking the government to appoint a royal commission of this kind it seems to me that the hon. member should have presented some grounds on which the House would have reason for believing that to some extent mergers had been responsible for injuring the reputation of Canadian securities abroad, for restricting the banking facilities of the country and for the continuation of high prices. While he has spoken at length with regard to the methods of the organization of these mergers, I fail to gather from his remarks anything in the way of what one would regard as prima facie grounds affording justification for a public inquiry. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that during the course of his remarks my hon. friend made a single reference to the reputation of Canadian securities abroad. I may have failed to hear all he said, but I followed him very closely and a perusal of his remarks in ' Hansard ' to-morrow will show whether I am right in that or not, but I did not hear a single reference to the reputation of Canadian securities abroad, and yet, that is one of the grounds which he gives why the government should appoint a royal commission to inquire into the effect of mergers in this particular. But, although my hon. friend has not put forward any reason in support of this clause in his motion I cannot help feeling that he has not done so because of the difficulty he would have had in making'out a case in that connection. I think my hon. friend will be the first to admit that there never was a time in the history of the Dominion when Canadian securities stood so well or so high as at the present time. If the existence of mergers is one of the factors entering into the reputation of Canadian securities abroad then, judging by the position at the present time, we would be led to conclude that mergers were a good thing rather than a harmful thing in that particular. One of the most prominent of modern financiers is Sir Edgar Speyer. He will, I think, be acknowledged in this House as being one of the foremost financiers in the British Empire. Giving to one of the leading papers of this country an estimate at the close of last year of the financial situation, Sir Edgar Speyer used the following words:	,
Just as Canada suffered in the nineties through no fault of her own, in common with the rest of the world, through the series of economic misfortunes which affected so many countries at that time, so the good credit which the ivorld at large now enjoys is shared by Canada in an exceptional degree. It is, indeed, of vital importance to Canada to know that the condition of credit generally has
been rarely higher than it is to-day, and that Great Britain may be expected to lend freely in 1911. The indications are that trade will be more active than it has been ever before, and that Great Britain will continue to supply capital to Canada with a generous hand for the development of the great natural resources with which she is endowed so abundantly.
So, we have the testimony of this leading financial expert in London to the effect that during the past year, during the time when these recent mergers have been formed, the credit of Canada stood higher in Britain than it has ever stood before. And yet the hon. gentleman suggests that because of the alleged damage done to Canadian securities by mergers, this House should appoint a -royal commission of inquiry.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not allege such damage ; I asked for a commission to ascertain how far these mergers might have an effect upon the reputation of our securities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In answer to that I might quote the very words of the motion given notice of by the ihon. gentleman :
That the recent mergers of heretofore competing industries and the issue of securities resulting therefrom should be the subject of public investigation, with a view. of ascertaining how far such mergers or the methods of carrying them out affect the public interest, either as causing continuing high prices for the commodities produced, as damaging the reputation of Canadian securities abroad.
I would submit that neither the remarks of the hon. gentleman or the situation as it is known to be in the financial world, afford a reason why on this ground at least the government should appoint a royal commission. My hon. friend further suggests that a commission should be appointed to inquire into the effect of these mergers as restricting the banking facilities of the country. Again, I fail to find that my hon. friend was able to show that the banking facilities of our country had been restricted in consequence of mergers. He did say that it was possible that because of these large financial transactions the banks would possibly be prevented from loaning money in other directions, but such evidence as there is does not appear to support his contention. At the close of the last commercial year loans were made by the banks in Canada amounting to approximately $677,617,000 which was almost $20,000,000 more than the commercial loams by the banks a year previously. During the same time the -banking capital increased by about $14,000,000 as an indication of greater activity in trade, and it may ibe remarked that in that period when the greatest volume of business was being done, namely, the month of September, the note circulation of the banks was *99.400 -

000. So, in the case of banking facilities as in the case of securities abroad, my hon. friend has failed to give any evidence to this House in support of his motion for a royal commission of inquiry. Far from finding any restricting of banking facilities we have the strongest evidence of the greatest expansion yet known in the banking history of Canada,
The last reason given by my hon. friend for the appointment of this commission is that the commission should inquire into the effect of the mergers in causing or continuing high prices for commodities produced. That brings us to the question of prices. If the hon. gentleman would refer to a resolution passed in this House last session he will find there almost the very words he has put into his motion. On the 12th of April last ye;ar this resolution was adopted by the House :
'Resolved, that it is expedient, in connection with Bill (No. 101) now before this House respecting the investigation of combines, monopolies, trusts and mergers, which may enhance prices or restrict competition to the detriment of consumers, to provide for the appointment of Boards of Investigation for the purpose of inquiring into alleged combines causing enhanced prices or restricted competition, for the appointment of counsel to conduct investigations before such boards, and for the payment of the members of such boards and of counsel, and of witnesses appearing before the boards, and of all expenses of boards, including transportation expenses incurred by the members thereof, or by persons under orders of such boards, in making investigations under the Act, and salaries of employees and agents and the payment of clerical and other assistance.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the Minister of Labour find that that resolution would authorize the carrying on of such an investigation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly, and what I want to point out at the moment is that to the extent to which my hon. friend asks this government to appoint a commission to ascertain the effect of mergers on prices, the very object aimed at (by him was obtained by parliament last year, and on the strength of the resolution then passed, was founded legislation which now exists. Let us see for a moment ho,w the legislation of last year is likely as respects effectiveness to compare with what is now suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk). His motion comes down to a request that the government should appoint a royal commission to investigate these various mergers in order to ascertain their effect upon prices. In 1897 the Minister of Finance introduced a Bill giving the government power to conduct an inquiry where there was reason to believe a combine existed for the purpose of enhancing prices, and, notwithstanding that the government were willing to concede that such' an investigation should take place be-Mr. KING.
fore a judge, hon, gentlemen opposite entered the strongest objection against it. They claimed that to put in the hands of the government the power to appoint men te investigate any merger or combine was j to give the Governor in Council a power that was well nigh inquisitorial, that would enable them to harass individual concerns, and for political or other purposes to promote their own ends. I imagine that if my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) were to press his motion he would meet to-night amongst his political friends precisely the same objections as were then advanced by them. For example, the hon. member for East Grey as reported in ' Hansard ' said :
It puts in the hands of -a few, men the power to harrass or annoy or interfere with the operations of business men in the country ... to put the traders and manufacturers of the country under the control of the government to such an extent _ as to keep them in perpetual dread of being attacked under this law. It might be used as a means of levying on .men political contributions or blackmail to any possible extent.
That is the view of one of my_ hon. friend's best friends on the other side of the House, and when my hon. friend's suggestion is met with that kind of argument on his own side of the House, he can expect but slight support for his motion.
Now, I differ with my hon. friend altogether when he says that the existing legislation is not sufficient for the purpose he has in view. I doubt if it is possible for more effective legislation to be devised than that on the statute-book at the present time, known as the Combines Investigation Act. Who knows better than the consumer whether or not he is being affected adversely by a combination? Who under my hon. friend's proposal is to be the judge as to what industries are to be singled out for investigation? Does he propose that this royal commission shall^ investigate every merger in the Dominion? If he does, the work of that commission is going to be very large and extensive. If he does not, who is to determine which merger is to be the subject of investigation in the first instance? Under the legislation on the statute-book, if any body of consumers have reason to believe that trade is being to some degree restricted by a combination, they have power, if they can make out a prima facie case, to secure an investigation; they have also power to put on the board of investigation one of their own number; and, in order that the investigation may be carried out in as fair a manner as possible, opportunity is given to the other side, namely, to those interested in the merger, also to name a member of the board. These two, agreeing together if they can, upon a judge, name him as chairman. They failing to agree, it is left to the government to appoint the third;

and these three gentlemen are given all the powers of a court-the power to compel the production of documents, the power to summon witnesses, the power to take evidence under oath. In other words, all the powers a royal commission can possibly have, are given by the legislation we already have, to deal with this very question which my hon. friend suggests should be dealt with by a royal commission. So I say there does not appear to be any reason for appointing this commission on the grounds he has named in his motion, while legislation which is more effective than what he proposes already exists, and exists in a form which is likely to be of greater service to those who are being adversely affected by any of these alleged combinations.
My hon. friend and some of his friends on tlie other side may say: we know of the existence of these mergers, but what investigations have taken place? And I suppose that because there have been no investigations under that law up to the present time, they will say that the law lias been ineffective. If my hon. friend has that thought in his mind, I ivould ask him how he tests the effectiveness of other legislation. To take a very obvious case, we do not estimate the effect of the death penalty by the number of death sentences passed or the number of hangings in a year. If the number is few, we believe the legislation is effective. If there are none we regard it as a most effective deterrent. The strength of lifesaving apparatus is not measured by the number of drownings that take place, but rather by the lack of number. So it is with legislation of this sort. The knowledge that the power exists on the part of any six men who can make out a prima facie case, to obtain a commission of inquiry, has a tendency to make men careful in their actions; and one of the most forceful illustrations of the effect of the legislation passed last session is the very circumstance that since that legislation has been put on the statute-book we have not had the outcries against mergers and combinations that we heard before, and that it has not been found necessary up to the present time, except in one or two cases, to endeavour to start proceedings under this statute.
But, Sir, even if my hon. friend had made out a case as to why the government should appoint a royal commission for the purpose suggested, I would contend that he has chosen an inopportune time for his proposal. At this moment this country is engaged in a consideration of one of the largest commercial transactions which it has ever had to consider. Any proposed change in tariff arrangements is always viewed with a good deal of anxiety by all classes in the community. At the present
moment the United States and Canada are each considering what legislation they shall pass in respect to a number of commodities, some of which are being produced by these very mergers to which my hon. friend refers. Now, I ask him, as a man of wide public experience, whether he thinks that at such a time it would be a wise thing for the government of this country to announce to the public that it proposed to appoint a royal commission for the purpose of making an inquiry into various business interests in this country.
I am afraid that the effect of adopting the course which my hon. friend suggests would be to bring about a condition of affairs diametrically opposite to that which he himself desires. What could more affect the securities of some of the large business concerns in Canada than an announcement to the public to-morrow, or the day after, that the government of this country, for reasons which had been disclosed in this parliament, had found it necessary to appoint a royal commission to investigate some of these large industrial establishments? Would it not have a baneful effect upon the securities of this country abroad? I think that when my hon. friend considers the matter carefully, he will come to the conclusion that it would; and if he looks more carefully at the effect of the. legislation which is at present on. the statute-book. I think he will see that that legislation is one of the strongest safeguards this nation has for the reputation of its securities. The fact that it is known throughout the world that if our large industrial concerns seek to do -what is not proper, seek to take an unfair advantage of the consumers, seek to unduly enhance prices or restrict competition, any six persons may start the machinery of government at work and secure a full and complete investigation into the business of such concerns the knowledge of the existence of such legislation has an influence abroad which tends to give the securities of these companies a value they otherwise would not have. In the reasons my hon. friend has urged, he has failed to make out a satisfactory case why in the public interests the course he has suggested should be taken; and I am convinced that on further reflection he will agree that it would be very much against the public interest to adopt that course.
In conclusion let me say that I hope none of the remarks I have ventured to make will be construed as in any way minimizing the importance of publicity in the work of these large organizations. I feel that in the public interest too great facilities for reasonable investigation at any moment cannot be afforded, I agree entirely with my hon. friend as to the importance of public investigation of mergers, and it was in that view that we put on our

statutes last year the Combines Investigation Act; but where I disagree with him is with regard to the case he has made out as affording reasons why a public investigation should take place, .and as to the opportuneness of such an investigation at this particular time. My hon. friend referred to the number of combines or mergers which have taken place recently. Well, this is an age of combinations. Not only do we see large combinations in matter? commercial, but also in cither directions. Even the churches have begun to combine.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Does the hon. gentleman think it is very proper for him to designate the movement for church union as a combine?
. Mr. KING. It was with no invidious intention that I used the word ' combine,' and certainly I did not use it in the sense the hon. gentleman indicates. I certainly would regard the proposed union of the churches as a consolidation, and I was pointing out that this was an .age of great consolidations in all lines, and in that connection I alluded to the church union movement as one that might possibly be more remote from the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite than the others I have named. We have large organizations of capital and large organizations of labour.
Speaking with regard to the merging of capital, we have to recognize that this being an age of competition, consolidation is in some respects very desirable. As my hon. friend has said, mergers in themselves are not necessarily a bad thing, and I think he will agree with me when I say that large consolidations in this age of competition are sometimes necessary, because the competition is not merely between one industry and another, but frequently between the industries of one nation and those of another, even the industries of one continent and those of another. The fact is that economic conditions have so developed that these large consolidations are becoming essential to the industrial expansion of a nation, and just because large consolidations are becoming more numerous inevitable for this very reason there should be a means of investigation at hand all the time, as afforded by the legislation enacted and not investigations for a special occasion only, as is suggested by my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: Is it the hon. gentleman's opinion that these mergers and combines tend to reduce prices or increase them to the consumer.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. SPROULE.: Have there been any investigations under this Act to which my hon. friend refers or applications for investigations?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might, say that at present there is an application pending before Mr. Justice Cannon in Quebec for the appointment of a board to inquire into an alleged combine in the case of the United Shoe Machinery Company. That application, I believe, is under consideration, and we are likely to hear any day

whether it has been granted or not. There have been a large number of inquiries as to proceedings under the Act. But I am a little afraid that many persons have not as yet come to know the full significance of that measure, or to understand its completeness. It tnay be that some of the representations made by gentlemen opposite while the measure was under discussion in the House, as to its possible limitations has had an influence on the minds of some. But I think it is quite true that, once the measure is tested, it will be found effective. And, as I have already said, the absence of cases under this Act does not by any means prove that it has not been of efficient service in restraining large organizations from taking a course that otherwise they might have been tempted to take.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was a registrar appointed under the Act, and if so, who is he?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, Mr. Acland, the Deputy Minister of Labour, was appointed registrar.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (York).: Had I not known that it was the Minister of Labour who was speaking I would have thought it was the minister of combines. Practically, his speech is a defence of these mergers. I would also make the criticism that he has evaded the question presented here to-night, the question of regulating the capitalization of public companies, which is one of the pressing questions of the day. I had intended to take up that question this afternoon in connection with the railways, and I will take it up at the first opportunity. The disorganized condition of affairs in the United States to-day is largely due to faults in connection with the securities issued in that country. But a commission, exactly equal to a royal commission, has been appointed by President Taft to ascertain how the capitalization of railways is to be regulated. That commission is made up of most eminent men, headed by Prof. Hadley. If our securities to-day are good in the markets of the old country, and they are, and if the securities of the United States are not marketable in Europe, as is the case, what is the reason? It is that Americans have overworked the market; they have issued so much watered stock, they have capitalized their great trusts and railways to such an extent, that they can no longer market the securities. And if we pursue a similar method our securities will be in disrepute in Europe in a short time. You cannot have the flotation of securities referred to by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), you cannot have ' high finance ' without damaging the credit of the country. See what the late Mr. Harriman did in connection with the
railways in which he was interested. He suddenly became the greatest railway man in the country. And he attained that position by manipulating the securities of the railways. One of the great grievances of the state of California is that a wholly unnecessary $10,000,000 a year has been added to the freight rates of that country in order to pay dividends on watered securities issued by Mr. Harriman. When a Minister of Labour says that the AntiCombines Bill meets the case he himself does not meet the case, for the Anti-Combines Bill has nothing to do with regulating the issue of securities. When I come to discuss that, in connection with the Tail-ways I think I shall be able to make out my case.
Referring to the banking system, which was mentioned by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), I will deal with that more fully when we take up the banking law. But it is evident that some of our banks have become what may be called flotation banks-they devote their resources more, to the flotation of companies than to giving accommodation to the public. One of the dangers of our banking system is in the flotation of these securities. But that subject^ will come up in connection with the banking law. It is a fact, as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) said in introducing his motion, that the rate of interest has gone up because of these neiv methods of finance. You cannot get anybody now to entertain an ordinary mortgage as security. The investor is looking for bonds or preferred stock accompanied by these free gifts of common stock as a bonus. And all this new trade of promoter and promotions is based on the idea of the overissue of securities to be loaded on the public, the interest on which is transferred to the consumer, whether a customer of the railway or a user of the goods produced by combines. And it is a fact that combines to-day are responsible for the increased cost of living now complained of in the United States. I think nobody will deny that. And reciprocity, or anything else, will not reduce prices unless you control and regulate the capitalization of mergers. This will have to be done by some public law, and such a law can be drafted only after investigation. The Minister of Labour told us that our trade was increasing and the banks had more deposits than ever. But that increase is no greater than our increase of population. The need of the country is more capital. When the Minister of Labour says that the law to regulate combines is a cure for the great public grievance of over-capitalization of companies that exists he evades the issue that must be faced. Canada, if she would avoid the evils of high finance and

the condition of affairs in the United States, must regulate the issue of securities by all public companies. Promoters will-as I have known in some cases-take a concern of $500,000 and capitalize it at $3,000,000, and put the stock on the market, making a large profit out of it, though, eventually, those who buy the securities may not get their interest. In the meantime, the public is loaded with the stock, and there is a tendency toward combination in order to increase prices. We boast of our Companies' Act, but nearly all the iniquities in connection with financial affairs, whether in America or Europe, grow out of the Companies' Act and the right it confers to issue shares. And, unless there is the strictest regulation by law of the issue of securities, the same kind of injury to the .public and to the credit of the country is bound to follow. Therefore, I would like to see in this country the same kind of commission appointed as in the United States to investigate and bring out the facts. I am awaiting with great interest that report, which will be made some time next summer by Prof. Hadley and his associates in connection with the capitalization of railways in the United States. In a little while it is probable that the United States will take up the question in a wider aspect, and will devise some wav to bring out the facts and secure regulation. When Governor Woodrow Wilson made his inaugural speech the other day in New Jersey he said one of the principal objects of his administration would be the regulation of the issue of securities, and that he intended, if possible, to put a stop to the discredit that had come upon that state by the result of the issue of powers of incorporation of all kinds, which he declared was a crying evil, not only in the state, but in the whole nation. So the question is before us, it must be dealt with, and it cannot be handled by a law that is merejy directed against combinations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It has long seemed to me that one of the greatest problems with which this parliament has to deal is this very question. Whether we will ever reach the day when parliament will be able to devise laws to control these combinations-, I am not prepared to say. At any rate, there is great need for some other legislation on the subject, it cannot come an hour too soon, and in my judgment we have already delayed too long in finding a solution. We see the evil in the financial world, we see it amongst manufacturing corporations, we find it in these large trusts. Other countries appear to be troubled with it as well as Canada and the United States, and they have endeavoured, but very ineffectively so far, to provide a Mr. MACLEAN.
remedy for the evil. At one time I had great hopes that President Roosevelt would break up many of these combinations. He started an action against the Sugar Trust, and he certainly woke them up pretty well. The publicity which he gave to their nefarious transactions, partially at least restrained that trust in its operations. The Oil Trust was another combination of a similar kind. He attempted to attack them, but unfortunately, owing to his presidential term expiring, he was unable to do the good work which he would undoubtedly have done if he had remained longer in office. I felt sure from his conduct that he would not be reelected, because I believed that the trusts and combines, and mergers, and railway corporations he was attacking would be too powerful in their opposition to allow him to be re-elected. I regret to notice that his successor, President Taft, is not following in the lines of President Roosevelt, although he declared that he intended to pursue his policy. I am afraid he has already been restrained, and I do not expect henceforth to hear of him accomplishing much.
Now, the hon. the Minister of Labour praises his combines law. At first glance it seems to be very well designed. But I think our experience since it was enacted proves the correctness of the predictions that were made at the time the Bill was discussed, namely, that there would be very few applications for investigation under it. Why? Because, as the old saying is, what is everybody 'rf business is nobody's business. If you leave it to six independent citizens of this country to put the law in motion, knowing as they must know, the trouble they will bring upon themselves by becoming practically the prosecutors, knowing as they must the risk, the danger and the abuse they will bring upon themselves in attempting to prosecute a combination, there is probably not one case in a hundred where the men can be found to undertake the task.. I believe that has been the trouble. The minister said no investigations have taken place. There is one pending somewhere down in Quebec, he said, but he did not tell us where it was, or what it was about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. I said it was against the United Shoe Machinery Company, and the application had been made in the city of Quebec. The application was presented at the close of last year, there was an appeal, and judgment was reserved on the 1st of February, and may be given out any day now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not hear the name of the case. But the Minister of Labour

said that this government had been striv-i ing to stop the nefarious operations of these combines. He said other methods that had been adopted up to the present time were not successful, therefore they were obliged to devise some other means to battle with these evils, and that was the combines law. He mentioned first that the Criminal Code was amended so that they might be attacked, but that was not effective. I would like to ask him why it is not effective? Because, after the Bill was put through in this House it was amended in the Senate until it was of no use. It was introduced a second time in this House and amended so as to make it valuable, but it dropped out because there was not time to put it through that session. It was introduced again and passed as amended so that would make it useful and so that it could be enforced.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: ' What year was that?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think it was about 1900. The law then could be put in force, and under it convictions could he secured against parties who were violating it. But what does the government do? They amended it the next session, by reenacting the words struck out which left it as it originally was, and thereby made it worthless. That was the opinion of the late Sir Oliver Mowat, and he was regarded as a very able lawyer; he gave that as a reason why the law was of no avail. For what purpose ? I honestly believe and 1 always did believe that it was at the instigation of these people who are carrying on their improper dealings that the then Minister of Justice when amending the Criminal Code put it back again. Now the Minister of Labour says that it was of no use. They made it of no use. They made it so that practically it is impossible for it to be of any value.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did the Minister of Justice of that day-I think it was Sir John Thompson-express the opinion in regard to the legislation to which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule.) now refers that (parliament was not enacting anything new or anything which was not already law, that they were not providing any penalty that did not already exist in the common law ; in other words, that the whole legislation that they proposed really amounted to nothing? Was not that opinion then expressed?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all. He said that he did not think it went much further than the general law went at that time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was the object of introducing this legislation at all?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was to focus public attention on these particular Acts and to
provide a remedy and a punishment. It was because an attack was made upon this law that Sir John Thompson gave the opinion that under the law of the time you might institute a prosecution, and probably carry it on as effectually to the end as you could under this amendment but owing to "the fact that nobody ever pretended to put the criminal law in motion for that purpose. This law was specifically providing a penalty for certain offences which were enumerated. I would further say that what always attracted my attention was the fact that the law was amended so as to make it of no value because the government immediately amended it, put it back again, left it absolutely useless and it has remained so from that day to this.
The Minister of Labour said : We have another provision ; we have a provision in the 'Customs Act, and the present government put it there in order to show their desire to control these nefarious combinations and trusts. That was to the effect that with regard to any article that was the subject of a combine or a trust to the detriment of the consumer or producer, and it might appear so to the government, they could take the customs duty off that article, let it come in free and thus punish the parties in that way. I have several times in this House heard members of the government eulogize that law and say what a wonderful thing they had done in that they had made it so simple, so easy for the government to set the law in motion in order to punish parties who committed this offence, and in order that the consumer might get his goods at the least possible price. Although their attention was drawn over and over again to certain'articles that were the subject of such combines, and an appeal was made to them to take these cases up, thev absolutely refused, year after year, to ' move. Judge Garrow prepared a case and presented it to the government before he was put on the bench, and afterwards placed it in the hands of others who presented it in this House, and although their attention was drawn to it not once or twice but many times and many respectable firms in this country were being injuriously affected and the government were asked to apply this provision of the customs law and punish the parties they absolutely refused to put the Act in motion and it remained a dead letter. They did it in one instance with regard to paper and that is the only time they ever put it into motion. Had it not been for the fact that this happened to he something that was pinching the press, and they were; afraid of the .power of the press I believe they never would have touched it. So, that law has remained a dead letter up to the present time except in that one instance. Then, the Minister of Labour introduces bis

Combines Act, and lie eulogize-s that to a certain, extent. The minister referred to a speech that I made away back in 1898 with regard to the danger of putting it in the power of the government to send out a commission in these cases. I always thought there was a great deal of merit in it but that there was a good deal of danger also, and when I came to see what the present government did in other lines 1 frankly confess that I felt it would not be a safe thing to do in the interest of the people because-I would be very much afraid that they might throw out threats, if they wanted to control certain great corporations in their own interests, or that there would be some intimations given that they might look out or. there would be danger ahead for them. If it should turn out that they would take the law up and enforce it honestly and properly, I think it would be valuable, but from what we have seen with regard to their conduct in other lines in my , judgment the public of this country would have no confidence in their desire to put that law into force honestly and properly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does not the hon. gentleman approve of the suggestion of the Son. member for Jacques Cartier that a commission should be appointed?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not talking about the proposal of the hon. member for Jacq-ues Cartier >at all. I am talking about the quotation which the hon. Minister of Labour made from what I said in 1898.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The proposition we are considering is as to whether the same course suggested then should be adopted now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am giving my reasons why the people distrust the government. I have given the various powers that they have had in their hands, and which they have never used, and I have said that I would be afraid that they would use the one I referred to either not at all or for blackmailing purposes or probably for the purpose of raising subscriptions to run elections.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the hon. gentleman approve of the appointing of a royal commission for this purpose?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not said whether I do or do not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will you please say?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister may or he may not be a lawyer. Lawyers always want one to say ' yes/ or ' no/ I could put a great many 'questions to the hon. gentleman. For instance, I might ask him if it is true that he has stopped beating his wife.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unfortunately, I have no wife.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was attempting, in answer to the comment of the hon. gentleman, to give the reasons for the position I took on this question, I am not dealing with the motion before the House so much as referring to the quotation which the minister made from a former speech of mine, and I am saying that the government have not honestly, in my judgment, taken any action for the purpose of punishing these individuals or stopping those combines. That is the reason I am referring to the quotation which the minister made from my remarks in 1898.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Apart altogether from the past, would the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him one question? Does he approve at the present moment of the government appointing a royal commission for the purpose of inquiring into mergers as moved for by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not read the motion close enough. I read it very cursorily, but it does not) commend itself strongly to my mind because I do not think that it goes far enough in its scope. But, I would like to see some independent commission to take up these subjects with authority to deal with them, and not leave it to a private citizen to do it at great trouble and expense to himself for which he is not indemnified. If I were to talk about my views on a royal commission it would require a much more lengthy explanation than I desire to enter upon with reference to this motion to-night. I have always thought that the government were not serious with regard to this matter. I think still that they are not serious about it. It is like their eight-hour labour day, it is a gold brick handed out to the people to deceive them. I said so about that Bill when it was enacted, I think so about it yet, and until the government show some desire to put the law in motion I shall continue to think so.


Robert Laird Borden: It is apparent to every one who has considered the subject that there may be combinations for business purposes which are entirely legitimate and which are not attended with any improper or injurious consequences to the community as a whole. Of that we can see examples around us every clay in Canada. On the other hand there is not only in Canada, but in other countries, a tendency to combinations of a character which are not for the advantage of the community or of the country. These combinations may be roughly divided into two classes:	those which are created for
the purpose of excluding competition and raising prices, and those the capitalization of which is very exaggerated. We know of cases where a great deal of the

capitalization does not represent any actual investment or anything in the nature of tangible value, but merely what might be called potential future profits. When a country is carrying on its affairs under a protective system, it is easy to 'see there may be evil in that because when stock representing no actual investment reaches the hands of bona fide holders for value, there may be a demand more or less insistent that the people who paid money for this stock- which originally represented no money at all-should have some claim on those in charge of the fiscal system of the country, so that dividends may be earned upon this stock. On a recent occasion outside of this House, I stated that I believed a good deal of injury had been done to the industrial development of Canada by some transactions of that character, and, gentlemen who are interested in manufactures afterwards said to me that they realized that there was a good deal of truth in my statement, because, as I said then and as I repeat now, when retribution comes for practices of that kind the punishment is apt to fall upon the just and the unjust alike. Combinations, even of the character to which I first referred, do not always have the absolute result of raising prices. One of the world's greatest combinations, the Standard Oil Company, did I understand reduce prices. I am not justifying the existence of that great combine; I am merely citing it as an illustration of the possibility of having perhaps an improper combine and at the same time a reduction instead of an increase in price. It is abundantly evident, not only in Canada but the United States, that combinations created for the purpose of doing away with competition do increase the price of commodities beyond what it should be. These two evils; the attempt to shut out competition and the capitalization of future possible profits are evils to which the attention of parliament may very well be directed. The Minister of Labour is perfectly satisfied with the existing legislation, but I am not sure that it meets the case at all. To be perfectly frank I do not think it does. In the_ first place, even if it were effective there is no provision which imposes upon any particular authority the duty of enforcing it. In the words of the homely adage quoted by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) what is everybodv's business is nobody's business and, a private person in this country will not take upon himself the odium and responsibility, not to speak of the expense, of enforcing such a law. It is idle for the government to place such a measure upon the statute-book and not to provide for its enforcement. I would dismiss altogether from consideration the operation of that statute, because I am of the present opinion that it would never result in coping with the two evils I have pointed out.	,
There is another thing that should not be lost sight of-we have absolute power in this parliament, if we exercise it, to enact legislation which will make the continued existence of these two evils impossible, so far of course, as that can be attained in view of the infinite resourcefulness of the men who are creating them, and in view also of the enormous complexity of business transactions in these later days. We may not be able to provide an absolutely perfect remedy but this parliament can at least provide a reasonable remedy. We are face to face also with the existence of these great combines in the United States upon a scale much larger than has been attempted in Canada. The combination of business interests in the United States at the present day, was undreamed of 15 vears ago, or even 10 years ago, and their influence is making itself felt in Canada. There are in Canada at the present time several branches of industry the output of which, and the prices at which the output shall be sold in Canada, are absolutely regulated by direct and positive orders from great corporations in the United States. I am not speaking from personal knowledge now, but from what has been conveyed to me by men who ought to be in a thoroughly good position to know what they are speaking of, and as to whose absolute truthfulness I have not the slightest shadow of a doubt.
My hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), says the same thing is true of combinations in Canada. I was not aware of that, because my attention has been directed to the remarkable circumstance that there were combines in the United States regulating, by direct and positive orders, the amount of output of Canadian factories, and the price at which that output should be sold. If that is the case, it seems to me that that subject, although it may ibe a very difficult one to deal with, and one that possibly can only be dealt with by means of the tariff, is a subject that requires the consideration of this parliament, and that ought to be taken up in connection with the evils resulting from combinations having their origin in this country, I think my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has done no more than his duty in bringing this subject to the attention of the House. Whether or not we agree with the remedy he proposes, whether or not we agree with the terms in which he has couched his resolution, I think we all must admit that he has done a public service in bringing the subject to the attention of parliament. For my part, I am inclined to think that instead of investigation wre want, some legislation. I am inclined to think that parliament is at _the present *time possessed of about all the information necessary to enable us to put some legislation on the Statute Book of Canada.

i Mr. F. F. PARDEE (West Lambton), Mr. Speaker, from listening to the -various opinions that have been expressed regarding the Combines Investigation Act, _ it becomes apparent what a difficult subject this is to deal with. Nobody will deny that under existing conditions in many lines the combines are an absolute menace to the people, having the effect of enhancing prices. The prime object, therefore, of any measure that may be brought into force should be to remedy that evil. The hon. leader of the Opposition has said that there is now sufficient machinery, irrespective of the Act at present under discussion, to get at the basis of the evil. If that is the case, I am bound to say that I am quite ignorant of it. I have given considerable attention to this matter, having taken some interest in the passing of that Act, and up to the time that Act was passed, I did not see any remedy for the evil complained of. It is true, the Act is not perfect, but what I would like to know, is how it can be made more perfect. It Eas been said that there is no way of enforcing the penalties that may be incurred under this Act. The ordinary way I understand, is simply by suit. In what other way can it be done ?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that the Act makes provision that the Governor in Council may enforce the penalties.


Mr. PARDEE.: I did not know that that was provided in the Act. The hon. leader of the Opposition speaks of the expense required to put the Act in motion; but one [DOT] of the strongest points in favour of the Act is that the expense is borne entirely by the government.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think the initial expense must be borne by the complainant until the case goes from the hands of the judge into the hands of the Commission.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That is merely the making of the motion. If the motion is successful, the costs are borne entirely by the government. The fault found by the farmers with the old procedure was this: It is very well to say. that there is at present a provision in the statute whereby we may attack combines, and if certain things are shown certain remedies will be given, but how is it possible for us to get together and put up the whole cost of wljat. may be a very expensive investigation, as was shown by the paper combine investigation. That is almost an impossibility for us. Therefore, it was that section 41 of the Combines Investigation Act was adopted, which provided that all the expense connected with the investigation should be paid by the government, and not a single dollar is to come out of the complainant.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon. If the judge orders proof or inquiry on the first motion, the expense of it has to be borne by the complainant, and it may be quite costly.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Only for the pTima facie case.


Robert Laird Borden: If this is a public evil, why should any responsibility of that kind be imposed upon private individuals ? If this is a good law why should not public provision be made for its enforcement ?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That question was brought up at the time this Act was under investigation. It appears to me to be selfevident why. I think it would not be wise for this House to put into the hands of any one, perhaps an irresponsible person, and without the slightest ground of- complaint, the means of coming day after day and setting all the machinery of this Act in motion on an ex parte motion.


Robert Laird Borden: But all that is not necessary. If there is a great evil of this kind, surely vou can appoint an officer or form a tribunal, who will not be called upon to act upon the initiative of any person, but who will be bound and responsible to take the initiative and deal with this evil wherever reasonable evidence exists that an inquiry ought to be made.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Practically we are agreed upon that. That is practically the same thing as now exists. Their complaint and evidence before any commission that might be appointed. Surely the commission could not investigate holus bolus without having so'me evidence on which to base its action.


Robert Laird Borden: The Railway Commission of Canada can, upon its own initiative, make any investigation it sees fit, wherever in its opinion, an evil exists, and I see no reason whatever why the same principle might not be applied to such a case as .this.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I can hardly agree with my hon. friend as to that. It would be giving a commission too great power to allow it, on its own initiative, to walk into the office of any business concern and examine its books and go into all the details of its transactions. To grant such a power to any body of men, which they might put into effect whatever they chose without even any demand being made upon them, could not fail to work injustice in some cases. As concerns the argument of the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule), what he desires is an independent commission and not have the onus put upon private individuals, because these individuals who would lay a complaint might be made to suffer in many ways. But sure-

ly no commission could be more independent than the one intended to be created by the Act now on our statutes. Those who complain appoint a representative, those who are complained against appoint a second, and a third is appointed by the courts. Surely no commission .could be more independent than that. Each side is entitled to employ its own counsel. I fail to see why any six farmers should have any reason to bear persecution in any way because they happen to lay a complaint, and I do not think there could be any doubt about their readiness to prosecute their complaint if they thought they could make out a prima facie case. Therefore I do not see how we could create any commission more independent than the one contemplated by the Act.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman were one of the six farmers he would think differently.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I do not see why I should. I have talked to a good many of the farmers on this matter and my information from them differs from that of my hon. friend. But so far as my hon. friend's remarks go, he is distinctly not in favour of the resolution of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) because he said very frankly-and I admire him for his frankness-that he does not think this government could appoint any commission which would not in some way do something wrong, and consequently could not be de. pended upon to act justly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I did not say that as far as my recollection goes, and I certainly did not intend to say it. What I intended to say was that if any commission were directly under the control of the government, the government could make that commission act or refrain from acting, and I would have very grave suspicion that the evil would not be effectively dealt with.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Well, I take it that the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, if it means anything, means that the commission should be appointed by the government. I cannot see any other way in which the commission he recommends could be appointed. I am not here in any way to defend combines. To my mind they are a menace. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has pointed out in his resolution that very frequently they raise the prices. That no one can doubt. But the sole point to my mmd is this What is the best way to get at the evil and stamp it out? This resolution, to my mind, is certainly not sufficient, and I have failed to hear any one propose anything that would provide a more effective remedy than the one we have on our statutes. But should a better remedy be found than is on our statutes, I am pre-94
pared to support it. As I have said however, the opinions expressed to-night as to the regulation of capitalization and various other things only go to show that so far nothing more effective has been proposed than we already have. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) has himself said that the legislation he evidently had in his mind might not be perfect because of the many devious ways of these combines which might render it unworkable. That is only another argument to show that in any new legislation such as now proposed, the House will not get at the root of the evil, and the only thing to do is to put in operation the legislation we have. What is there to prevent, under the existing statute, an application being made and a commission or board of arbitration being appointed? Under that statute the various parties to the dispute can have their own counsel and thresh the matter out. The Act goes so far as to say that the books of the corporation may be examined into by the board of arbitration, and this board of arbitration may be started practically without a single _ dollar of expense to the parties complaining. The chief objection I have to the motion of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier is this, that having spent the time we did on the Combines Investigation Act last session and that, in so far as we can judge at present, that legislation is better than any yet proposed, I can see no reason why we should devise some new tribunal and appoint another commission to examine into the very thing covered by the present Act. If any legislation can be shown which will more effectively reach the object which it is intended to reach I shall be only too glad to support it, but I do not think that any has been proposed so far. As the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has said these combines can be waked up just as well by our present Act as by any other legislation and therefore the resolution of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is simply a surplusage; and before deciding any other remedy, we ought to give fair opportunity to test the one we have.


Richard Blain: The speech of my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) is a confirmation of the general opinion that the government is unable to reach these combines. I am sure nobody in Canada will think for a moment that we have not sufficient legislation on our statutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. leader of the opposition did.


Richard Blain: The complaint about the country is that the Minister ot Labour is devoting altogether too much time in the preparation of legislation and fails to enforce the legislation already on the statutes.



The reason there is so much talk in the country about combines is because of the introduction of the national policy many years ago and tjie attacks my hon. friends opposite made on that policy. My hon. friends opposite taught the people of Canada that combines were introduced by the policy of the Liberal-Conservative government. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) was one of those who went about telling the people what a wicked policy the Conservative party had created, and that it was the prolific parent of combines, and that these combines had unduly enhanced prices to the consumer, and when the Liberals . came into power of course these combines would be immediately got rid of. The people are to-day asking how is it that this government does not enforce the legislation it has and break up the combines which are unduly enhancing prices. It looks as if my hon. friends opposite, by their tariff reform and by sitting in their offices preparing legislation, were trying to reach this great question when they are well aware that all that is wanted is some activity on the part of some officer who should be appointed for that purpose, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition suggested when this matter was up for discussion last year. The Minister of Labour had a year of trial of his new legislation, and he acknowledges to-night that it has done nothing except create one case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I may interrupt my hon. friend, I did not acknowledge that the legislation has done nothing; on the contrary, I say it has done everything. The very fact that there are no investigations under it shows that these companies are held under restraint by it.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman seems to say that because the legislation has done nothing, therefore, it has done everything. Because there is only one case under the law, the hon. gentleman tells us that peace is abroad, and there are no combines.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would remind my hon. friend of the illustration I used: He would not estimate the effect of the death penalty by the number of hangings, but by the fewness of them.


Richard Blain: I would like to hear the hon. gentleman explain how this law has kept down combines. Only in one case has any action been taken under it. And the hon. gentleman admits that he and his department, and the government have taken no action at all. If inactivity will reach difficulties of this kind, it is the only case in which difficulties are to be dealt with in that way. The people will not be satisfied, and are not satisfied. The defence of existing legislation 'by my hon. friend is Mr. BLAIN.
practically a plea for combines. Take, for instance, the situation in relation to ibeef. This session, and more particularly last session, complaint was made from this side of the House that in western Canada there is a great evil that is hindering the agricultural interests there, and that in sections of Manitoba, and the other provinces where, years ago, a large number of cattle were raised by the farmers, these people have gone out of the cattle business for the reason that there are low prices for their beef because of the operations of a combine. And it is proven that in the province of Ontario the price paid for beef to the farmers is not an excessive price; no one can accuse the agricultural interest of charging too much for the beef produced upon our farms. The difficulty arises after the beef has been sold by the farmer and before it reaches the consumer. There are combines in that business; the Minister of Labour himself understands that. There has been discussion in the public press, and, no doubt, the Department of Labour has received considerable complaint from the people of the country that this legislation does not cure the evil. There has been legislation on the statute-book for a long time. There is a law that was placed on the statute-book at the instance of the late Hon. Clarke Wallace. I am not saying that it was well enforced; it is not necessary that I should discuss or defend it. _ But when the present government came into power they promised that better legislation would be passed and enforced. But the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) of course, sits quietly by and you do not get a word against combines from him. All that he does is to reform tariffs


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: And he could not reform tariffs if he had not supporters like hon. gentlemen opposite at his back. He does not have to consult them ; they will vote.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. CARVELL.: Perfectly satisfied.


Richard Blain: I have listened for some years to my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) talk about the importance of stability of tariffs in this country. Yet when all interests are doing very well, the government take up the question of tariffs^


William Pugsley: That was in the National Policy too.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) will endorse it, because it contains a sort of balm of Gilead for every part of the country. However, we are not discussing the tariff question just now. I point out that there is a strong feeling in this country against combines, that enhance prices of staple com-

modities to the consumer. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), has pointed out that there are great combines already in existence in Canada, combines that are provincial and combines that are national also. And there are combines from the old country, huge combines such as this country never heard of. There would be no need of the resolution of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) if this government had been doing their duty to the people on this line. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) would support the government, and this side of the House has supported the government, in legislation proposed for the purpose of preventing the formation of these combines. The Minister of Labour in his Bill of last session had the united support of both sides of the House. I pointed out at the time that I did not think this legislation would reach the case. I do not think the Minister of Labour himself thought it would reach the case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly, I did. Why did the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) support it if he thought it would not reach the case?


Mr BLAIN.: I pointed out that it would not reach the case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why did my hon. friend support it if he thought it would not rqaeh the case?


Richard Blain: I take the ground that the government in power are responsible to the people for the legislation of this parliament. Whenever there is anything good, my hon. friend says: See what we have been doing for Canada! But whenever there is anything going wrong he says: Oh the opposition are as much responsible as we are, Sir, I do not think the people will be satisfied with that kind of argument, I want to point out that this question is one that should receive the energetic attention of the government; it is their duty to look into it seriously. It is not enough for the Minister of Labour to say, as the hon. member for West Lambton did, that five or six farmers could join together and make a complaint, and that if the machinery of this law was put in force under this complaint these combines could be reached and the government would pay all the costs. That is not sufficient. If the government believe that this law is able to reach these combines, it is their duty to appoint somebody whose business it will be to enforce the law, otherwise the legislation is a dead letter. Why does not the hon. gentleman accept the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, and appoint an officer in his department to enforce the law?
94i


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The reason why I think such a course would hardly commend itself to the House is that when a similar line of action was recommended once before it was pointed out that the government would use such an officer for its own purposes; they would send him as an agent to further political ends. To follow the argument used by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), this officer would oppose those interests which the government might think it desirable to oppose, and refrain from opposing favourable interests. The legislation which has been put upon the statute-book removes the possibility .of anything of that kind, and leaves the initiative in the operation of the law to those who are likely to be affected adversely.


Richard Blain: If my hon. friend's suggestion has anything in it, it is that there cannot be found in his department any one to enforce this legislation because there is too much politics in it. That is a strange condition of things. That rather suggests that my hon. friend knows that he is possibly surrounding himself in his department with politicians rather than with men who will enforce the labour law. I am not saying that is the case, because I accept his statement. He says it would not do to accept the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, for the reason that if such an officer was appointed he would be charged with enforcing legislation against ope class of people, and leaving another class go free. Does the hon. gentleman think that is a sufficient answer to the suggestion made by the leader of the opposition?


Mr. PATERSON.: Would you not be rather apt to make that charge yourself.


Richard Blain: Mv hon. friend has been guilty so long, in his early days, of looking after the interest of his party rather than the interest of his country, that I fear his vision is not very clear on a question of this kind. I want to point out that there is a feeling abroad in Canada that combines are in active existence. That feeling disturbs commercial conditions, and agricultural interests as well. If the people could be convinced that where combines are proved to exist this government would scatter them; that where it was proved that prices were enhanced unduly in consequence of these combines the government would suppress them; then the people would be satisfied and content, instead of being suspicious and discontented as at present. When people are paying too much for their goods at any time they want a government in power who will break down the combines, and who will see to it that the manufacturers shall not be permitted to charge more than a fair and reasonable

price for their goods. But so long as the government allow these combines to continue their operations, with the effect of unduly enhancing prices to the consumer, there will always continue to be these discussions, and these unsettled relations between the manufacturer and the consumer. That is a point that ought to receive some attention at the hands of the Minister of Labour, and that is what I had understood his department was for. When I open the ' Gazette,' published by the Department of Labour, and look over the difficulties that occur between capital and labour I find that they are mainly settled by themselves, not by the agency of _ the minister's department. My hon. friend seems to think that when he has put a law upon the statute-book his work is done, and that somebody else must enforce it. A law of that kind will not be satisfactory. I am in accord with my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when he directs attention to the condition of things that exists in this country at the present time. I say that if the Minister of Labour hopes to reach these difficulties that exist in Canada he must be more active, not in putting legislation upon the statute-book, but in enforcing the legislation that is already upon the statute-book.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I confess I had expected that a question of this importance would have received more attention from the government. I am very much disappointed with my hon. and young friend the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), because he does not seem to have accomplished the results in his department that we hq.d a right to expect. No doubt the hon. gentleman is very busy in his department, and I can understand that possibly questions of this kind do not absorb so much of his atten: tion as they do outside the House. But, really, some of the motives given by him for not accepting the prayer of this motion seem to be trivial. He suggests that it would be most untimelv for us to investigate mergers at this moment, because negotiations are going on with the United States for a reciprocity treaty. Surely my hon. friend is not serious. What possible relation is there between a proposal to investigate our economic conditions in Canada and the negotiations for a modification of our tariff with the United States?
In order to give some color to my hon. friends suggestion, he says that we would have to investigate the businesses of these companies. My hon. friend is not serious as to that. This motion calls for the investigation of the circumstances attending the merger, the influence that it has in connection with prices and the influence in our standing in foreign markets and banking necessities. We have nothing to do with Mr. BLAIN.
the details of the businesses of these companies. Not at all, but a Royal Commission, formed under the terms of this motion, if it were passed, would not be called upon to look into the details of any business whatever, or I much misunderstand the purport of the motion. My hon. friend seems to think that the object of this motion is to complain of the price of certain commodities, such as is contemplated by the Combines Act, to complain of the increase in the price of say, butter, or any other such necessities of life. There is nothing of that kind in the motion, and I think it would be sufficient for me to mention that any lawyer would see that the combine Act does not apply to an object of this kind. In order to be able to assume that that is proven it is sufficient to read section 5 of the Act passed last year under, the leadership of my hon. friend, because you will see that it merely applies to certain specific cases of arrangements between producers as to the prices of their products, There is nothing of that in this motion. While I am speaking of that, I may say that I was amused to hear the minister say that the passing of this Act had stopped combines.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I beg your pardon.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, the hon. gentleman compared it with the death penalty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, my hon. friend is mistaken. I spoke of its adverse effect on combinations. I did not say that they had at all ceased because I believe that combines will continue to increase during the coming years. But, I did say that it had had a restraining effect upon combines using ;their power in a manner detrimental to the public.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Surely my hon. friend knows that these combines have been continuing during the whole year, that regularly, manufacturers and wholesale and retail dealers have been meeting as usual, fixing prices and violating the terms of the Act. There is no doubt that the Act applies a remedy, but as the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule), said, it is a useless remedy, because nobody will employ it. In truth, no government, as my hon.. friend from Grey says, will take up this question seriously and directly. Why ? Because it affects great interests and governments are afraid to touch these interests. There is no doubt about that. Why, if the minister instituted the inquiry that is suggested in this motion great, powerful men would be affected, there is no doubt, but we would have an immediate cessation of the operations which lead to these mergers where these men make enormous sums of money and less powerful men and groups of poor people lose their all. That is what

I find in connection with this. My hon. friend stated that there had been no proof made in support of this motion that the banking facilities of the country had been injuriously affected.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Of course, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), knows that he has no right to reply without the consent of- the House, as this is an amendment to go into Committee of Supply. I have no objection if the House consents.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend (Mr. King), knows that it would not be proper to state certain particular cases here, but surely my hon. friend is aware of the details of most of these mergers, where they were engineered, what banks carried them through, and who were the individuals interested. The members of the government are supposed to know all that, the public generally know it, and it is a matter of notoriety. I think I have said enough to establish the fact that the creation of this commission would be a very useful thing.
Amendment (Mr. Monk) negatived on division and House went into Committee of Supply.


William Pugsley: We had finished, when the House was last in Cornu Ittee of Supply-


Richard Blain: My hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley), is not suggesting that we take up estimates to-night ?


William Pugsley: Yes, we are going on with the Manitoba items-public buildings.


Mr. STAPLES.: These items largely concern the city of Winnipeg and the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart), has gone home. It is now a quarter past eleven, and I think it is about time to discontinue work.


William Pugsley: There is one item for Winnipeg, a military item, which I propose to allow to stand. That only leaves one item of $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The government are proposing an eight hour Bill and they should not ask us to work twelve hours a day.


William Pugsley: I hope my hon. friend will not press the objection because we can get in an hour's work. The first item is.
Dominion public buildings-renewals, improvements, repairs &c., $15,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the minister would be well advised to let us adjourn.


William Pugsley: I do not think so, Mr. Chairman.


William D. Staples: I have been in this House for many years, and I have noticed that the Manitoba items usually come up
almost at midnight with the result that they are rushed through and do not get the criticism they deserve. I do not think we should be called upon to sit around here till this hour of the night waiting to have a right to protest against any of the estimates dealing with Manitoba. It is true that there are only a few items, it is true that Manitoba gets very little eon-sideraion from this government and the least consideration the Minister of Public Works might give to Manitoba, is to take up the items earlier in the day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: On days when we have set questions to be disposed of and where notice is given in advance that one of these days is intended to be used for the-purpose of discussing a question, .it is not the usual custom nor is it part of wisdom to start to do a day's work when we have reached a quarter past eleven at night. We commenced this morning at eleven o'clock with the committees and we have put in over 12 hours' work to-day.


William Pugsley: If the hon. member for Macdonald desires to have the Manitoba items stand over I will be willing to take the items for Saskatchewan andi Alberta. The hour is quite early. I am surprised at my hon. youthful friend from East Grey wanting to go home so early.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: The minister is getting along with his estimates much more rapidly than are the public buildings in Manitoba.


William Pugsley: The sooner we get through with the estimates the more-rapidly we can do the work.


Arthur Meighen: That is not my experience, the rush with the estimates is in inverse ratio to the hurry with the public buildings.


William Pugsley: I will let the Manitoba items stand and take up Saskatchewan and Alberta. The hon. member for Macleod is here and he will be delighted to see the Macleod item go through.


Mr. HERRON.: Personally I do not object, but I do not think it fair to proceed in the absence of the other members from my province.
Battleford public building, $33,000.


William Pugsley: The site has been purchased for $3,000 and the contract let. The building is for post office, &c. The contract, exclusive of heating and electric wiring, is for $26,785, and the estimated expense, including everything, is $41,310.40. Battleford, formerly the capital of the Northwest Territories, is in a fine section of country which is growing rapidly.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Is this new Battle-ford or old Battleford?


William Pugsley: Old Battleford.


Mr. LAKE.: What is the population of North Battleford, and why is old Battleford chosen in preference?


William Pugsley: Old Battleford is a considerable distance from North Battleford, and a branch line of the railway has been constructed from the main line to it. Of course a public building in North Battleford would not suit Old Battleford, and vice versa.


Richard Stuart Lake: Old Battleford is an important place but New Battleford has also claims for a public building.


William Pugsley: At some no distant date in the future, my hon. friend may be able to so press the claims of New Battleford that it may have a public building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was the contract let? ^


William Pugsley: On the 29th of October last.


Arthur Meighen: When were the plans approved?


William Pugsley: The chief architect
tells me over a year ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many tenders were received?


William Pugsley: Tenders were called for by public advertisement. One tender was received, that of M. H. Piggott & Son, of Hamilton, for $26,735, which was nearly $12,000 below the chief architect's estimate of tire bare cost of the building. That is for the whole contract, outside of heating, lighting, fittings, lock boxes, &c.


Mr. STANFIELD.: When did this item first appear in the estimates?


William Pugsley: In 1907-8.


Glenlyon Campbell: Was that before a general election or since?


William Pugsley: My recollection is that it was before the general election.


Glenlyon Campbell: Had it anything to do with the result?


William Pugsley: Not that I am aware of.


Glenlyon Campbell: Who is the representative in this House?


William Pugsley: Mr. Champagne.


Glenlyon Campbell: Would it not be a good thing to have the representative of the district here when such an important matter as this is being discussed.


William Pugsley: I do not think it is essential.


William Pugsley: 


Arthur Meighen: Has the minister received petitions from the city council of Battleford or other public bodies urging the speedy construction of the building?


William Pugsley: The only record I have is that application was made by Mr. Mc-Craney as long ago as January, 1907, requesting the erection of a public building in Battleford. He made out a very strong case as to the inadequacy of the present accommodation. One strong point he made was that for the offices for the different departments, the Dominion lands office, the telegrah office, the immigration hall, and the post office we were paying rents amounting to $1,536 a year.


Arthur Meighen: Will the minister explain how it is, then, that without any particular urgency, except what is represented by the member for the constituency, he has given this building, while he postpones many others which were in the estimates of the same year, hut which are represented by members of the apposition?


William Pugsley: One strong reason was that the accommodation for the various offices was wholly inadequate.


Arthur Meighen: The case I have in mind has no accommodation at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the accommodation was so inadequate in 1907, how is it that the work remains undone until 1911? There was urgency for the building in 1907, but there was no urgency for the next three yeai-3, and now it is getting to be urgent again.


Richard Blain: Is my hon. friend paying the same rents now that he did in 1907? [DOT]


William Pugsley: I presume the same.


Glenlyon Campbell: What was the population of Battleford at the time Mr. Mc-Craney first made the suggestion?


William Pugsley: 1,800 or thereabouts.


Glenlyon Campbell: Will the minister read to the committee the letter of recommendation he received from Mr. MoCraney?


William Pugsley: I have not the letter, but only an epitome of it. It is dated January 19, 1907. It sets forth the rents paid for the various government offices, the amount of revenue received, money orders, &c. He states that Battleford stand's tenth in the province of Saskatchewan for gross revenue, and third for money orders paid, that each of the buildings now occupied is inadequate for the requirements of the public service, that a considerable saving in fuel and caretaking could be effected by having all the offices in one building. He also points out that Battleford is the oldest established town in Saskatchewan,

that it is a post of the Northwest Mounted Police, that it has a land office and an Indian agency, that it is destined to be a town of considerable importance, and is the centre of a fine farming country.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is there a branch line running into old Battleford now?


George Perry Graham: You can go into both old Battleford and new Battleford by train.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister send any representatives of his department to visit these places and advise whether or not a building should be erected?


William Pugsley: Yes, we sent a representative to chose the site.


Arthur Meighen: Was he instructed to ascertain whether Liberals or Conservatives were to be served?


William Pugsley: No.


Arthur Meighen: Does he know, as a matter of fact, that his representative makes a practice of so inquiring?


William Pugsley: I have never heard it.


Arthur Meighen: Then I will give the minister an instance. Not longer ago than this summer there were certain residents of a locality not far from the city where I live who came to me with respect to certain difficulties they were in caused by floods in the Assiniboia. I am not referring now to the improvements made by the government during the month of the last election, to improvements of a similar kind undertaken by this government about 28 days before the election; but I refer to a point further east where some difficulties occurred bv reason of the flooding which could be remedied. At the request of these gentlemen I wrote the department and urged that a representative should be sent to the locality to ascertain whether or not it was the duty of the government to make similar operations in the bed of the river and thus avoid the disasters they were subject to. A petition, I believe, was also sent in. The department did send out a representative. The petition was headed by the name of a gentleman who turned out to be a staunch Liberal. The representative notified the man whose name was at the head of the petition and was met by him at the railway station and they drove together to the scene. On arriving there the representative of this government inquired what were the political complexions of those who would be benefited by the proposed alterations. He was informed by this gentleman that when they called on the representative for the constituency he made no such inquiries, but did seem to consider that the public were entitled to equal justice, no matter of what political complexion. That, however, made no impression on the representative of the Public Works Department; and having ascertained that mostly Conservatives would be benefited, he recommended, so far as my information comes from the department, that the undertaking was not such a one as should be contemplated by the department at all.


William Pugsley: Might I ask the name of the representative of the government?


Arthur Meighen: His name was Stevens, and if the hon. gentleman or the gentleman himself disputes my statement, I am prepared to give evidence in support of it at any time. I have no doubt whatever that the same practice is very rigidly adhered to in the department.


Glenlyon Campbell: In what papers were the tenders advertised?


William Pugsley: I am very sorry I have not got the list, but would be glad to get it, and give it to my hon. friend.


Glenlyon Campbell: I think this item should stand. We have not got the information we are asking for, or the population of the. district in which this building is to be erected. It is now a quarter to midnight, and I think that after the effort of the ministry with regard to the eight hour Bill some attention should be paid to the comfort of the committee.


Mr. CROTHERS.: Was a contract entered into and at what price?


William Pugsley: Yes, at $26,735.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: But we only voted $10,000, so that the department has entered into a contract $16,000 in excess of the vote.


William Pugsley: Subject to the vote of parliament.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Is there a provision of that kind in the contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: It seems to me that the best reason this item should be allowed to stand is the absence of the member representing the constituency. The minister has not told us the grounds upon which he proposes to put up a building there at all. I assume he has never visited the little old village himself, and does not deign to tell us what information he has from any public official or whether he has any at all as to the necessity for this building. From the information we have, all that the minister knows in this matter he got from the gentleman who at one time represented this constituency in this House and not from t.he hon. member who represents it now. Hon. members on this side have the right to have the gentleman who *represents the constituency here so that

Hie might be subjected to cross examination regarding the statements contained in the letter which the minister says he received from the gentleman who represented the constituency at some day long past. iThe minister knows nothing about it him-feelf, and the hon. member who represents the constituency now (Mr. Champagne) is [DOT]not here. If the minister has no report Ifrom the officials of his department as to fehe necessity for a building there or as [DOT]to the character of the building, he ought not to press this item.
It seems to me that in all these eases the minister should afford members of the House information of the grounds on which he is proposing to erect a public building. In this case, the only ground the hon. gentleman gives us is a letter from a supporter and that letter is four years old. The minister has told us that circumstances change very rapidly in that new country, that cities spring up in a few hours. Four years ago there may have been need to put up a building of this kind in the place proposed, but that does not show that it may not be expedient now to expend twice as much as was then proposed. We on this side have a right to have some one here who knows the circumstances of these places, and I know no one better qualified than the gentleman who represents the constituency. But he is not here. The minister does not even tell us that he consulted the gentleman who represents the constituency.


William Pugsley: I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crothers) now, if it will satisfy him, that on many occasions the hon. member urged upon me the need for this building.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have no hesitation in accepting the statement of the Minister of Public Works. But the fact that the representative of the constituency urged the construction of this building is the very reason why - that representative should be here. The minister is not prepared to answer questions on cross-examination, for he has never been there, and knows nothing about it at first hand, .but all his information is at second hand from the representative of the district. But this is not the first time when the minister has asked a large sum to be spent on public buildings or on harbours and rivers when the gentleman who instigated the expenditure was not hei;e. The minister comes forward knowing nothing about it, and the member who does know about it keeps out of the chamber and gives us no opportunity to cross-examine him. I submit that this item should be allowed to stand until some one is here who is prepared to answer our questions.
This expenditure was first proposed in Mr. CROTHERS.
these estimates in 1907-8. It appears to be another of the innumerable cases provided for shortly before the last general election. I have been looking up some of the old estimates, and I find that in Nova Scotia we have had very rank illustration of that sort of thing. In the main estimates of the session before the election, the vote for harbours and rivers for Nova Scotia was about $373,000. A few months after that, it was determined to have an election; and on the 9th of July, 1908, supplementary estimates were brought down for no less a sum than $448,000 for the same purposes. Taking the two together, we find that, three months before the general election, they were giving an average of about $45,000 for each constituency of Nova Scotia. That is a nice way to endeavour to purchase a proportion of the electors in the different constituencies of that province.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman, this is an item for Battleford.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes, and I am asking whether or not the same motive induced the putting in of this item just before the election as induced the other. And I am illustrating the evils of that system, or want of system, and would like to ascertain, as I started out by saying, from the member who represents the constituency, whether or not similar conditions exist there to those that existed in Nova Scotia, but we have not the advantage of that information, for the member for that district is not present. It is a very nice thing for the government to say, in substance, to the people of a province:	We propose to
spend $800,000 on harbours and rivers in your province before 31st March next. We are putting our candidates in a position to say to the electors of each constituency: Here is an estimate in print. The government have promised to expend, during the year ending 31st March next, in the improvement of harbours and rivers in Nova Scotia, no less a sum than $813,000. Now the election is coming on next October. If the government is sustained, these sums will be expended, if the government is not sustained, well, you take your chances of getting this money.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I admit that there are hundreds of thousands of voters in every province of this country who are not influenced by anything of that kind. I understand the answer that hon. gentlemen opposite will sometimes make: You are accusing the whole people of that province of being purchasable. Nothing of the kind. Thousands of men in the province of Nova Scotia, as in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, are uninfluenced by any such improper motives. But I am sorry to say that in almost every constituency,

whether it be in Nova Scotia or any other province, there is a sufficient number of voters who are influenced by such improper motives to change the result of elections in that constituency. Now I would like to know from some one capable of telling us, the conditions out at Battleford. There is no one here, and we are asked to vote away $33,000 without having all the information, without being in a position to cross-examine the informant. Just fancy a minister of the Crown coming before this committee with a letter written by some one who is not here, with the person representing the constituency out of the chamber, nobody who knows anything about the conditions to answer our questions, and he asks us to vote away $33,000 for the construction of a building up ip that part of the country. I do not know whether the hon. members sitting behind the minister would vote for it if it came to a vote. We have often been asked the question: If it were proposed to erect this building in a constituency represented by the gentlemen on this side of tne House, would you oppose it? And they seem to think that there is no answer to that question. Well, Sir, if you will pardon me for referring to a personal matter, I will tell the minister that during this very session I have been requested by a number of influential electors in my constituency to try to induce the Minister of Public Works to erect a public building in a certain village. I wrote back very emphatically to them and said, I shall do nothing of the kind.


William Pugsley: What is the name of the village?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am not giving any names just now.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman wants to keep that dark too.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I distinctly told those gentlemen that I would not be a party to asking the government to expend public money in that place, because there are many other places throughout the country very much larger and much more entitled to an expenditure of money in the public interest. I have no doubt that there are dozens of other gentlemen on this side of the House who have refused to ask the government to expend money on public buildings at places where they think it should not be expended.


William Pugsley: I have not found many of them.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Well, I have told you the fact in regard to myself.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman wont favour me even with the name of the place


Thomas Wilson Crothers: No, you are not entitled to the name just now. When my
hon. friend comes to vote away public money he will then be entitled to the particulars; and if he comes to vote away any public money for the construction of a building anywhere in my constituency, and I am in the House, he will have a right to cross-examine me as to that town, just as I have a right now to cross-examine anybody who lives at Battleford. We do not know, for instance, whether this public building is intended for post office accommodation, or whether it is intended for a custom house.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman must have been out when I stated what it was for. I said it was for Dominion lands office, telegraph office and post office.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The minister has told us on other occasions the exact reason why he did not put a public building in a certain town with 4,000 or 5,000 inhabitants-the post office there is now being carried on in a very commodious building, convenient to the public, for $5 a month, or $7 a month, at a much lower expendi-tur to the government than there would be if we were to expend $15,000 or $20,000 in putting up a public building. But we have no information touching that matter here. We do not know where the post office is in the old town of Battleford, we do not know how much rent is being paid for it, we do not know whether it is in a convenient position, we do not know, in a word, the very facts we ought to know, according to the minister himself, before we vote away this public money. According to his statement made on other occasions, if they have a commodious building there now, if that they are able to get at a reasonable rental in a convenient locality, then this money should not be expended. Now we have no one here to tell us the facts of the case. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that as we have already put in three quarters of an hour, and that it is past midnight, the minister ought now to accept the suggestion we made an hour ago, and not attempt to proceed with any of these items until he has some one here qualified to answer proper and legitimate questions submitted by hon. members on this side of the House.


Mr. RHODES.: I must submit with the utmost deference, that I do not think the minister has given us reasons why we should vote this sum of money. I find in examining the report of the Postmaster General of last year some rather interesting facts. For example, I find that the postal revenue for the town of Battleford was the sum of $4,246.81. Upon looking at the return for the town of North Battleford, which I believe is at a distance of some seven miles away, the postal revenue was $5,226.97, or something like one-fifth more. Then of money orders issued in the

town of Battleford, the return is $3,078; in the town of North Battleford, $5,604. In the next column I find that the total amount of money orders issued was for the town of Battleford, $33,900.36; the total amount of money orders issued to the town of North Battleford comprised the sum ot $71,351.80, or in round numbers more than double. Again, the total commission received from the public in the town of Battleford was $213.08, and for the town of North Battleford, $425.85. Again, in the next column the number of money orders paid shows a slight increase in the case of [DOT]North Battleford. The same with the total amount of (postal notes paid. Again, the compensation paid to the postmaster in the [DOT]town of Battleford was $137.69, that is, I (believe, has percentage in addition to the 'salary; in North Battleford it was $238.81. 'Now all these instances go to show that in North Battleford you have a larger and 'more flourishing town, but you give the public building to Battleford. Take, for 'instance, the volume of the money orders in Battleford, $33,000; in North Battleford, '$71,000. It would be only fair for the Minister of Public Works to take us into his 'confidence and tell us why it is that old 'Battleford has been chosen for the site 'of this post office, rather than North Battleford. It would be doing simple justice 'to the citizens of North Battleford to let 'them know why old Battleford is chosen in preference.
1 Mr. PUGSLEY. I should be very glad indeed to give my hon. friend that information, but if we had to let items stand 'because the member for the constituency 'did not happen to be present, we would *not be able to get on with the business. It does not make any more difference to 'me than hon. gentlemen opposite whether they talk against time or whether they do not, but I think it makes a little difference to the people of the country. I want to congratulate my hon. friend in my eye Qn talking against time while apparently conveying the impression to many who listened to him that he was not doing so. I have heard a great many public (men in my day in the legislature where I attended for a number of years doing the same thing, but I have never heard one who does it more admirably than my hon. friend who is just in front of me. But he ought to remember that it costs a little, that every half hour that we take up unnecessarily here costs something to the country and I do not believe my hon. friend will approve of it. The question is simply whether we shall vote an item to enable the department to pay the contractors for this building to which parliament has already committed itself. Is it worth while to waste time simply for the sake of wasting time ? With regard to the reason Mr. RHODES.
asked for, very courteously, by the hon. imember for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), with whom I have no fault to find, because he did not follow the example of the hon. gentleman who preceded him, tihe reason why we selected Battleford is, that this is an old town and it is growing, not rapidly, but it is growing very well indeed. While the main line of the.Canadian Northern railway passed it by, it has now been connected up with a branch line and I believe both the Grand Trunk Pacific land the Canadian Pacific railway have Old Battleford in view and are seeking approval of routes by which they propose to reach that town. Battleford, according to my own observation, is in the centre of a magnificent, a beautiful farming country, first class settlers have gone in there and it happens that in old Battleford we have several departments of the government. We have the Immigration Department, the Mounted Police, a telegraph office, a Dominion Lands office, and for all these we are paying a pretty heavy rental. The accommodation is not what it ought to be and it will be very muijh better to have these different departments housed in one building.


Mr. DANIEL.: What rental does the minister pay?


William Pugsley: We are paying $1,536. Surely it is better to pass this item, and I will only ask for two or three more, including Macleod. Then, we will be able to go home to our comfortable beds and have the consciousness that we have done some actual work.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I desire to say one word in reply to the minister. If I had not sat here for two sessions and listened to his persuasive and comforting voice I would be amazed at the courage he has displayed on this occasion in charging me with talking at this hour of the night and wasting time. I want to resent that statement with all the seriousness and indignation of which I am capable. Members of the House know very well that I very seldom take up any time in addressing the House. I think I may fairly claim credit for that. I never take up any time unless I feel that I have something to say. Every hon. member present I think, will admit that while I have had the honour of a seat in this House. I have taken up comparatively little time in discussing public matters. But, it does not become the hon. minister as a member of this House to accuse any other member of talking against time. I desire anything I have to say in this House to be adjudged upon its merits, and in my judgment hon. members who heard what I said a few minutes ago will agree with what I say.


William Pugsley: The majority would be against you now.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: When the minister was requested at half-past eleven to adjourn he refused to do so and now talks about hon. members wasting time. He ill-estimates the opinion of the people of this country when he .does not know that the universal opinion is that we are putting in too much time after twelve o'clock, that honest and virtuous men ought to be in their beds before twelve o'clock and that the business of this country would be better performed if we concluded at ten o'clock at night, if we should go to bed at that hour and come back next day and work in daylight and not at night. It has been said by members of this" House and by hundreds of -eonle outside of this House, that the sitting's of the House are too protracted during the night. They are surprised at the hour at which these estimates are going through and especially on Friday night, when a great many members are away. The general opinion is that these estimates go through at these late hours with the deliberate intention of putting them, through the House when non. members, exhausted by the lon<* hours, have gone home. That is the opinion of the public outside of this House and yet the minister has the courage to get up at a quarter-past twelve and accuse an hon. member of wasting the time of_ the country by talking about these expenditures and insisting upon the committee adjourning that we may go home and go to bed like the honest, virtuous politicians we all claim to be The minister would stand higher in the estimation of the electors of the country if he came before this House in daylight and asked for these estimates then instead of coming to the House at twelve o'clock at night, or one, two or three in the morning, and getting estimates through after the members of this House, by reason of these long hours, have become exhausted and gone home to recuperate in order that they may be enabled to fight next day. The attack which the hon. gentleman made on me was entirely uncalled for.


William Pugsley: I was congratulating you.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: You cannot-I was going to say-humbug me, as the minister attempts to humbug others by any such sweet words as those. I submit that at this hour the committee had better adjourn.


Glenlyon Campbell: I was surprised to hear the minister state in one breath that from personal observation he could assure the House of the character of the country
around Battleford when in the next breath he told us he had never 'been there.


William Pugsley: I said I had passed through North Battleford, and that I saw there one of the most beautiful sections of country my eyes ever rested on.


Glenlyon Campbell: Then his eyes deceived him. The soil there is so sandy that when portions of the Mo-osomin reserve within a few miles of the town were put up at auction they could not get a ibid at any price, and yet the minister tells us from personal observation it is the finest country his eyes ever rested on.


Richard Blain: I submit that the sitting member of the county should be present when an important item as this is being discussed. I make that submission because on one occasion I remember a supporter of the government condemning the government for uselessly voting public money in his constituency, and perhaps the member for this constituency would do the same thing.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: My hon. friend need have no fear of that.


Richard Blain: You never can tell. The sitting member for the county on that occasion condemned the government for the expenditure.


William Pugsley: Who was the member?


Richard Blain: Mr. McEwan who represented Huron some years ago.


William Pugsley: There has been no such member since I have been here.


George Perry Graham: And there is no such disposition now.


Richard Blain: I have no doubt that such a thing 'would surprise the Minister of Public Works because he has educated his followers in a different method. But the fact is that Mr. McEwren denounced an expenditure on a wharf at St. Joseph in his county, and refused to he held responsible for it, and ,$15,000 were wasted there, and all you can see to-day is a few posts sticking out of the water, and no sign of a wharf. In view of such an incident as that surely the sitting member for the constituency ought to be here. I would like to know whether there has been any correspondence 'between the sitting member and the minister with respect to putting this item in the estimates.


William Pugsley: I have given a summary of that correspondence.


Richard Blain: My complaint is that my hon. friend, ,instead of bringing down to the committee the letters recommending this building, leaves them in the department. I take the ground that all the correspondence respecting an item of this

kind ought to he forthcoming. My hon. friend refused to bring down original documents. If he brought them down, I am quite sure there would be less criticism, and he would be able to get his items passed through the committee much more quickly.


William Pugsley: I am so much impressed with the forcible argument of my hon. friend, and his thirst for information that I feel disposed to accede to the very strong desire he has expressed that the item stand over till to-morrow ; 'and when that thirst is satisfied by the production of the letters, I understand that he will assist me in getting this item through.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 12.32 a.m., Friday.

Friday, February 3, 1911.