1916-04-03

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Christopher Sinclair.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 77, respecting Colonial Bank (Canada).-Mr. Middlebro.
Bill No. 78, respecting British Trust Company.-Mr. Morris.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay on the table a certified copy of an Order in Council approved by His Royal Highness the Governor General. As it relates to important matters, it is, perhaps, advisable that I should read it for the information of the House, and that it may appear in Hansard:
Certified copy of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Royal Highness the Governor General on the 3rd April, 1916.
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 31st March, 1916, from the Right Honourable Sir Robert Laird Borden, the Prime Minister, respecting the desirability of appointing a Royal Commission to inquire into certain contracts made by a committee (known as the Shell Committee and herein referred to by that designation), of which General Sir Alexander Bertram was Chairman.
The Prime Minister observes that the Committee was constituted for the purpose of acting for the Government of the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as the British Government), and especially for the War Office and afterwards the Ministry of Munitions, in giving orders under the direction and subject to the approval of the British Government, for shells required for the purposes of the present war; and that the expenditure made by the Shell Committee for that purpose was on behalf of the British Government.
The Prime Minister further observes that on

the evening of Tuesday, the 28th March, in the course of a debate upon a motion previously moved by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. George W. Kyte, one of the members of the House of Commons, made certain observations with respect to the contracts hereinafter mentioned which had been entered into by the Shell Committee on behalf of the British Government.
The Prime Minister also observes that on Thursday, the 30th day of March, he made an announcement in the House of Commons with respect to the matters alluded to by Mr. Kyte, a copy of which announcement is hereto appended.
The Prime Minister considers that, having regard to the considerations set forth in the said announcement, it is desirable that a commission under Part One of the Inquiries Act be issued for the purpose of making a full and complete inquiry and investigation into the following contracts made by the Shell Committee, namely, a contract bearing date 19th day of June, A.D. 1915, between the International Arms and Fuse Company, a body politic and corporate and the Shell Committee; a contract bearing date the 19th day of June, A.D., 1915, between the American Ammunition Company, Incorporated, a body politic and corporate and the Shell Committee; by each of which contracts the Shell Committee agree to purchase from the respective companies aforesaid a quantity of fuses of the description and upon the terms therein stated. Also a contract constituted by an order bearing date on or about the 16th day of July, 1915, given by the Shell Committee to the Edwards Valve Company of Chicago and accepted by that company, by which order the Shell Committee agreed to purchase a quantity of cartridge cases of the description and upon the terms therein stated. Also an alleged contract between the Shell Committee and the Providence Chemical Company of St. Louis, by which contract the Shell Committee agree to purchase a quantity of Picric Acid, if it should appear that the said Shell Committee has entered into such contract.
The Prime Minister, therefore, recommends that a commission for the purpose aforesaid do issue under the said Part One of the Inquiries Act directed to the Honourable Sir William Ralph Meredith, Kt., Chief Justice of Ontario, and the Honourable Lyman Poole Duff, one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada, authorizing and requiring them with all reasonable diligence to make full and complete inquiry into the contracts aforesaid and each of them and into the acts and proceedings of the Shell Committee, whether by themselves or by any other person or persons directly or indirectly, and of the Minister of Militia and Defence whether by himself or by any other person or persons directly or indirectly in relation thereto or in connection therewith and into the negotiations therefor, the profits or prospective profits arising thereunder, the disposition, division or allotment of such profits or prospective profits, or of any commission or reward for procuring the said contracts or any of them and as to the persons interested in any such profits, prospective profits, reward or commissions, and generally speaking into all other acts, transactions and matters of every kind relating to the said contracts and each of them and to report the result of such inquiry with the evidence taken therein. Also to inquire, into such other matters relating to the acts or 
proceedings of the Shell Committee as may be referred to the said commissioners by Order in Council from time to time, and to report the result of any such further inquiries with the evidence taken therein. .
The Prime Minister further recommends that the said commissioners, for the purposes of the proposed inquiry, shall have all powers and authorities which could be conferred upon them by the Inquiries Act, Part One, including the powers and authorities mentioned or described in the eleventh section thereof as the same is enacted by the Act II* George V (1912), chapter 28, intituled, " An Act to amend the Inquiries Act."	.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendations and submit the same for approval.
F. K. Bennetts,
Asst. Clerk of the Privy Council.
The document annexed (see Hansard, March 30, 1916) has already been read to the House; it is not necessary that I should read it.
[THE GOVERNOR GENERAL.]



STATEMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: To-day I directed the attention of His Royal Highness the Governor General to an article which appears in the press of to-day, representing that an official of the British Government has been sent from New York to see the Governor General respecting certain matters mentioned therein.
I am assured by His Royal Highness the Governor General that the statement which appeared in this morning's Citizen to the effect that an official of the British Government was sent from New York to see him respecting alleged malpractices in connection with Canadian orders placed in the United States is untrue.



DEATH OF CORPORAL DR. STEWART.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ARTHUR B. COPP (Westmorland): I wish to draw the attention of the acting head of the Militia Department to a Teport which has been given wide circulation in the public press with regard to the death of Corporal Dr. Stewart in Toronto. The report is that this young man, who formerly belonged to the province of New Brunswick, enlisted early in the war and went to the front. Having been seriously wounded there, he was in a hospital in England for some months, and late last fall was invalided home. Although in a weak condition, he took part in the recruiting campaign throughout the province, and in that connection did excellent work.
[Stage Direction]
Recently he went to Toronto for medical treatment, and underwent an operation in one of the hospitals of tba*t city. The report says that one evening during his convalescence, when he was out on the street, owing to some peculiar action on his part which was entirely due to his physical condition; he was arrested and placed in a lock-up or jail, in a cold cell. He contracted cold, pneumonia developed, and in a few days he died. If the reports in the press are true, this is a very serious matter, and I should like to know whether any action has been taken by the Militia Department in connection with it, or whether any will he taken. I have not heard directly from this man's friends in my province, although I know them all personally.
(Mr. KBMP: I cannot give my hon. friend any information on the subject just at this moment. If he will be good enough to tell me in what paper this report appeared, I will make'suoh inquiries as are necessary undeT the circumstances.
Mr. COPP:: The report appeared in all the papers. I have a clipping here from the Citizen.


Mr. KEMP:: Of this morning?


Arthur Bliss Copp: No, I think it was a day or two ago. There is an editorial in the Citizen this morning with regard to the matter. I will send the clipping over to the hon. minister. I am not positive, but I think it was taken from the Citizen.



PRIVATE BILLS.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Bill No. 8, respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company- Mr. Morphy-in Committee.
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: Before the committee proceeds with this Bill, I should like to call your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that before the words " Private Bills " on the Order Paper there is a note which reads as follows:
The letters E.F. denote those printed and distributed in both languages when the Orders were printed.
I notice that these letters do nof appear in connection with Bill No. 8 and Bill No. 24. I inquired at the distributing office, and the officer gave me to understand that these

Bills were not printed in French. Knowing as I do that hon. gentlemen from Quebec take a very active interest in these Bills, I request that the Bills be printed in French before they are proceeded with.


The CHAIRMAN:: I believe the practice is that it is not within the power of the committee to take any action in the matter. Any action suggested as being necessary ought to have been taken before the second reading of the Bill. The Bill being properly before the committee as it is now, it is not competent for the hon. gentleman to raise the point.


Mr. TURRIFF:: I submit that as the Bill has not been printed in French, we cannot go on with it. If this point should have been taken before, I think it was the duty of the Chair to draw attention to the fact that the Bill had not been printed in French.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have nothing further to add. I draw the attention of the' committee to the fact that I have already given my ruling.
Mr. J. E.'ARMSTRONG:	Would the
Chairman be good enough, to inform the committee where he obtains the information upon which he bases his ruling?


John Gillanders Turriff: I think that I am perfectly right, and I appeal from the ruling of the Chair.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, if you will be good enough to refer to the rules of the House you will notice that rule 73 says:
All Bills shall be printed before the second reading in the English and French languages.
I think that is plain enough to support the point which I have taken.


Mr. BOIVIN:: I may be able to settle
the difficulty by telling my hon. friend that the Bill has been printed in French, and that I have a French copy in my hand.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under these circumstances I assume my hon. friend from AsSiniboia (Mr. Turriff) will withdraw his motion.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I still contend that the notice is in the Order Paper in the manner which I have described. I inquired at the distribution office, but could not obtain a French copy.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have a copy before me printed in French, so I think the Bill is quite properly before the committee. I

assume that my hon. friend from Assini-boia will withdraw his motion.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is my hon. friend quite certain it is the right Bill?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Quite certain.
On section 1-short title:


Mr. DONALD SUTHERLAND (South Oxford):: I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the interests affected by this Bill. It has been before the Railway Committee on several occasions and members of that committee are more familiar with it than other members of the House. A great principle is involved in this Bill, a principle that must be settled by the members of this House. The Bill affects the province of Ontario only, notwithstanding the argument advanced that, as the people of Canada control 40 per cent of the common stock of the Canadian Northern Railway, all parts of the Dominion have consequently a deep interest in the measure. I repeat that the effects of the Bill will be felt in Ontario only, and that the objections which have been raised by the people of that province are entitled to some consideration. The Government of the province of Ontario protested against the extension of these charters of the Canadian Northern Railway, and their action was unanimously confirmed by the Legislature of the province in the following motion, which was moved by the Provincial Secretary and seconded by the Minister of Public Works:
Resolved, that this House approves of the recent action of the Government in opposing before the Railway Committee of the Parliament of Canada the proposed extension of certain railway charters hitherto granted by said Parliament of Canada and which would interfere with projected hydro-electric railway lines in the Niagara peninsula. And this House reaffirms its objection to the granting of charters by the Government of Canada to local electric railways within this province, and the removal of such railways from the jurisdiction of this legislature by declaring them to be for the general advantage of Canada.
In addition to this protest by the legislature representatives of over 300 municipalities assembled in Toronto protested against these extensions on the ground that they were likely to interfere with pxojects on foot in that province for the construction of electric railways by municipalities. Protests were also received from councils, boards of trades and other bodies in the province. The Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario was organized less than two years, but the amount of work it has accomplished is something marvellous. It has been a very active body. At the last municipal- elections -in 30 municipalities where surveys had been made by-laws to provide for the construction of such railways were submitted, notwithstanding many protests against such projects being submitted to the municipalities during war time, when the resources of the country might possibly be required to their fullest extent. Notwithstanding these objections the by-laws were maintained in 24 out of 30 municipalities in which they were submitted. This goes to show that public sentiment in the province of Ontario is very strongly behind this project to build electric railways and distribute power through the province. This strong public sentiment is entitled to some consideration when protest is entered against the renewal of charters, which like these have been renewed time and again. Western Ontario is practically covered with charters for i ail-ways, where there is no evidence of railway construction being intended. These renewals are almost invariably passed by the Railway Committee without serious objection. A plausible story is generally advanced that some day when conditions will warrant it a railway will be built through the particular district. The charters do not even specify the exact location of the proposed roads, they simply say from or near a certain point to some other point. This thing has gone on year after year. I have been surprised, as a member of the Railway Committee, to see how little objection has been raised to their passing, and I am satisfied that we have pursued a very reckless policy in the granting any renewal of these charters. The time has undoubtedly come when'we must revise our policy in regard to the granting of railway charters. The Canadian Northern railway came to this Parliament only two years ago and represented that it was absolutely necessary that the Government should do something to prevent the railway going into the hands of receivers, and the Government has had to guarantee the bonds of the company and to assume its liabilities to a certain extent. Then we know the deplorable condition of another great transcontinental railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific. Notwithstanding the glowing prospects that were held up to the people of Canada when-that line was undertaken, we have cause to hesitate and consider whither we are drifting, when we. are asked to extend char-

ters such as are daily coining before the House of Commons.
I said that there was an important principle involved in the extension of these two charters and I maintain that to be the case. I remember, when I was a member of the Legislature, 14 years ago, the strong protests that were made against the indiscriminate handing over of power rights at Niagara Falls to corporations with little regard for the interests of the people. At that time electrical development had not reached the stage that it has to-day. It was a much newer thing and the people did not realise the enormous value of it, particularly in the Niagara district. There may have been some excuse at that time for doing some of the things that were done, but they were done in face of the protests that were made and in spite of the prediction that this would prove to be one of the most valuable assets that the people of Canada possessed. When you-think of the enormous power that can be developed there and the value of that power, and when you realise that previous to 1905 the former Ontario Government handed over to corporations, and with little attention to safeguarding the interests of the people, 430,000 horse-power, you can come to but one conclusion and that is that the interests and rights of the people received little consideration in the transaction. In the dying days of that Government, an attempt was made to hand over 125,000 additional horse-power to private corporations. Not only that, but they entered into an agreement with these corporations that the province of Ontario would not undertake to develop power in competition with them. When the change of Government took place that was the condition of affairs; 550,000 horse-power had been disposed of in a short time by the former Government of the province of Ontario. When the new Conservative Government came into power they immediately took steps to see that the last allotment of 125,000 horse-power was not granted to the corporations, they took the ground that it was an illegal act, they were sustained in that and the grant was cancelled. They also appointed the HydroElectric Commission. But, previous to that time, the body created to deal with this matter was known as the Municipal Commission which had been appointed by the late -Government. It had no power to do anything beyond finding out a good many things, and amongst the things it found out -was that-many municipalities in Ontario were anxious to proceed with

the development of electrical power and to get it as near cost as possible. The Government of the province, instead of undertaking the development of power themselves, which they were prohibited from doing under the agreement that had been entered into, gave these companies to understand that if they did not supply power at a reasonable cost to the people steps would be taken to see that the people got it at first cost. As a consequence, offers were received from some development companies, from one in particular, -to supply power at as low us $9.25 per hoTse pewer. It was agreed that after 25,000 ho-rse power had been -used the people should receive it at $9 per horse power. A contract was entered into with this particular company to supply power, and from that day down to the present time, municipality after municipality has been making application for the hydro-electric service, and in 1915, 110 municipalities were -using 122,000 horse power. It is predicted that during the present year 130 municipalities will require 160,000 horse power. These are some of the steps .which have been taken with regard to the development of power for the people and by the people.
The cost of power in Ontario has been more than cut in two as a result of the action of the Ontario Government increasing the Hydro-Electric Commission, and they have had power furnished to the people at the cost which I have stated at the Falls, the people paying for the transmission of the power. This has proven to be such a great success, and is so popular in Ontario, that you will not hear one single protest against the hydro-electric development of power for municipalities throughout the province. This power has almost been entirely supplied to cities, tow-ns and villages; not altogether because a great many of the farmers in those districts where they have low tension lines aie to-day availing themselves of the power that is being supplied along those lines with the -result that it has become so popular that people have come from all parts of the province -to see what advantage it was to the farmer to have electrical power placed -at his disposal to enable him to conduct his business. With the scarcity of labour and the difficulties that the farmer has -to contend with, you can but faintly realise what it means to him to have this power until you come to spe how the business of the farm is conducted in these days.

I 'believe that in the constituency I represent there are more than twice as many farmers using hydro-electric power on the farm to-day than in any other constituency in Canada. Notwithstanding that the cost is higher to-day than it would be under more favourable conditions, there is not one of these farmers who would think of getting along without this hydro-electric power. When you see the farmer filling his silo, operating his thresher, cutting his feed, grinding his grain, sawing his wood, milking his cows, lighting his ham and his house, heating his house, and cooking with electricity, you begin to realise the possibilities there are in store for the farmers of this country when they have placed at their disposal this great asset of which we have .such a bountiful supply in Ontario,
The corporations do not like the idea of this continuing; they do not like the idea of people becoming their own carriers and distributors of power. But I want to say that I believe the use of electricity on the farms of Canada is only in its infancy and that theTe are greater possibilities in that respect than in almost any other. We find volumes being written as to why the farmers do not remain on the farm; we find advice being generously handed out to>
the farmers' sons advising them to stay on the farm1; we find the newspapers loaded up with articles of that kind, and yet the movement goes 1 on from the farm to the city, until to-day, with an agricultural area affording opportunities such as no other people possess in the whole world, we find that half of .our people are living in the towns and cities and only half of them left to cultivate the broad acres of Canada. We find the people of the cities and towns groaning under the high cost of living; we find governments appointing commissions to find out this, that, and the other thing. A commission has been appointed to inquire into the high cost of living, and then there is the Economic Commission, sitting right here in the city of Ottawa, the object of which is to investigate such questions as increased agricultural production, agricultural education, transportation, cooperation, farm credits, and the placing of soldiers on the land after the war. These are some of the questions that the minds of the people are centered upon to-day, and which we are trying to solve. The agriculturalists of this country have been urged
to increase the production of the farms, particularly at this time when the country is at war. And yet, when the three hundred odd municipalities of the province of Ontario protest against the extension of these charters on the ground that they will interfere with all the good hoped to be accomplished and enumerated in the instructions to this commission sitting in the city of Ottawa, and which I have just read, we find very little attention paid to their protest. Js not cheaper transportation the secret of the whole thing? Is it not a fact that the high cost of transportation is the curse under which the people of this country are groaning tojday? The railways of this country have been given bonuses, land grants, cash subsidies, guarantees, and assistance in other directions, to an extent never equalled by any other country on the face of the earth. In many places there are two or three railways in operation where one could do the work much better. It is absolutely impossible to have cheap rates until we have a more sane and businesslike policy in this respect. The time has arrived when old notions and prejudices will have to be swept to one side and our whole system of railway building thrown into the melting pot, and a new system evolved.
What happened when the Hydro Commission were appointed, in the province of Ontario? They did the work for the municipalities, and gave them the power at cost. The people immediately petitioned the Government to empower the commission to undertake the construction of Hydro-Electric railways in the province. A committee representing the different municipalities was appointed and mapped out districts in Ontario, particularly western Ontario, through which the roads should be built. These roads were not run indiscriminately here and there, but were laid out on a well-defined plan; they were to be built, first, only in districts where the conditions warranted it, and where everything seemed to indicate that they would prove to be a paying concern. Now, what will be the condition when these HydroElectric railways are constructed? For no matter what this Parliament does with regard to the Bills before us, these HydroElectric railways are going to he constructed, and are going to give cheap transportation to the people of Ontario, and distribute power amongst the farmers of the province. The distributing of power for a distance of five or six miles on either side of the electric railway will furnish cheap

power to the farmers. In this way only can cheap power be mac^e available to the farmers of Ontario, for it has been found that an expensive transmission line through a sparsely settled district makes the cost of power far too high. But it is hoped and expected that the difficulty will be overcome by the construction of HydroElectric railways in the province.
Why is there objection to the passing of these Bills? It is for the very reason that it is proposed to build Hydro-Electric railways through this same district, which is one of the most thickly settled parts of Canada, and where there are undoubtedly opfportunities for the railways proving a paying concern, particularly with regard to the district between Toronto, Hamilton, and Niagara Falls. The people residing between London and Toronto, on January last, voted upwards of $14,000,000 towards the construction of a road between these two points. The argument has been advanced in the Railway Committee that the granting of this extension would not interfere with the hydro scheme at all. But can you conceive, Mr. Chairman, of any good reason why two roads should be constructed where one will answer the purpose, and where one can be constructed at half the cost of two? The railways of Canada are receiving generous subsidies from the Parliament of Canada, but no subsidy, I believe, has been granted to the builders of the hydro-electric railways in the province of Ontario. The Canadian Northern railway has been very generously assisted by the people of Canada. That road has received from the Dominion Government a cash subsidy of $30,747,325, provincial subsidies of $6,821,000, and grants from municipalities to the amount of $765,000, making a total of $38,334,753. Guarantees have also been given that road by the various provinces and the Dominion aggregating $224,988,340.
Some people will say that this road has invested considerable money in a right of way between those two points, and that they are therefore entitled to some consideration, and that if it had not been for the money stringency caused by the war, they would have been able to go on with the building of the road. I grant that they are entitled to some consideration, but they are entitled to no more consideration than are the people of Ontario, if as much. This road has been generously assisted by the people of Canada in the past, and we may rest assured that the Hydro Commission will not do then an injustice, any more

than they have done an injustice to the municipalities whose plants they have taken over, and other things that were of little or no use to them afterwards. The plea put forward by the railway company that their money invested in rights of way will be lost, is absolutely without foundation. I am assured, and I feel certain, that every consideration will be given them in this matter.
With regard to the objections that were raised by a number of hon. gentlemen in the Railway Committee, I admit that the sympathy of members outside of the province of Ontario was not as strong as that of the representatives of the province, and that was only natural; but I would point out to these hon. gentlemen that an adverse vote on the measures before us will not have a good effect throughout the country. We are endeavouring to overcome the obstacles that have stood in our way in the past. If we aTe ever going to make such a country of Canada as we would like it to be, we must realize that the individual provinces are entitled to some consideration, and, when such a matter as this affecting one province alone comes up and the feeling is very strong that it ought to be a provincial matter, then people outside of that province ought to deal generously with it in regard to the matter. The influence of corporations in Canada has not in the past been in the interest of the people; many millionaires have been created through the concessions granted to corporations; but at such a time as this when our people are doing their utmost to bring to a successful issue the greatest war that has ever been waged in the interest of freedom and civilization, we must realize that we have reached the end of one era in the history of the world and that we are at the darwn of another, in which the interest of the people is to be paramount to that of corporations, when the people are going to have their way in all matters in spite of obstacles, and when they are going to see that corporations do not receive privileges which are denied to individuals.
I do not wish to take up any more time but the situation being such as it is, this being a purely provincial matter and one that ought to be dealt with by the province concerned, taking into consideration the fact that these Bills have been renewed four times already, that it is a continual cry of "renewal, renewal," and also taking into consideration the fact that this

railway company is on the verge of bankruptcy, I say that we ought to (hesitate before extending a charter that has been protested against by such public bodies as I have already mentioned. I therefore move:
That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and that the Committee rise.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe):: Mr. Chairman, having made a few remarks in the Railway Committee on this Bill, and even in the face of Sir Adam Beck and the Hydro-Electric Commission having had the temerity to express my opinion there, I purpose making a few remarks to the committee. My hon. friend from South Oxford (Mr. Sutherland.) has endeavoured to persuade, at least those members who do not live in the province of Ontario, that what is known as the Hydro-Electric 'Commission is such a holy and sacred thing in that province that no man dare lay his hand upon it, and that it gives the most supreme satisfaction to every one. 'Coming, as I do, from a part of the province of Ontario where such has not been the case, I intend to rely, not upon any statements of my own, but upon the reports in the newspapers of that part of the country.
It has been proposed by this so-called Hydro-Electric Commission that a so-called radial Tailway should go into the county of Simcoe. I find this statement in the Barrie Gazette:	.
Barrie's experience with the Hydro-Electric is not lllcely to create much enthusiasm for an electric railway with that concern holding- the controlling interest. If individuals choose to invest their money in such a speculative undertaking, they should be at liberty to do so, but the town should assuredly leave it alone, Sir Adam Beck to the contrary, notwithstanding.
The reason that the Hydro-Electric Commission is viewed with alarm in that part of the country is because not many miles from the town of Orillia, this Commission, which never makes a mistake,
. 4 p.m. has erected a monument of folly in a power plant which has cost the province $240,000, the receipts from which do ..not pay even the interest on the money invested. What do these gentlemen who are shouting " Hydro " all the time say to that ?


Mr. BURNHAM:: I will fell you what they say if you are asking them. They say: The Hydro-Electric Commission is not a sectional affair; it is a provincial affair. What may not pay in one part pays in another, and the whole thing pays.


William Humphrey Bennett: If my hon. friend will allow me, I will give another instance as to what they say about the Hydro-Electric Commission. What they say is exactly what the Barrie Gazette says: that so long as those matters are entrusted to the Hydro of which Sir Ada miBeck is the president, the public, fooled by other experiences, should be very chary about going into such affairs. I do not blame Sir Adam Beck alone for it, because there are two other members on the commission.
The town of Orillia, some years ago, erected a power plant on the Severn river, and to-day it is supplying power at $13 per horse-power, and with the improvements that are contemplated it will be supplying power in time at $11 per horse-power. On the same river Sir Adam Beck and the Hydro-Electric Commission have a power plant from which they are supplying power to that part of the community, and to the town of Barrie, twenty odd miles from Orillia. While the well-conducted anc} careful investment on the part of the town of Orillia permits power to be supplied to the people at $13 a horse-power, this wise Hydro-Electric concern is charging the citizens of Barrie $23 a horse-power. What do my hon. friends say to that? Is it any wonder that the Ontario Government is being besieged to-day to correct the error made by the Hydjo-Electric Commission; that it is being called upon to reduce the rate to the people of Barrie to the same as that which the people of Orillia pay? This Hydro-Electric Commission, it is alleged,. always keeps faith with the people, and makes bargains which it never breaks. Let me read a sample from a Goderich newspaper :	(
When challenged on the subject before the Hydro by-law was voted on in Goderich, Sir Adam Beck declared that the price of power supplied to Goderich would never, never, never be increased above the contract figure of $37 a horse-power. Goderich is now being charged $43 a horse-power. The contract, as The Signal declared at the time, is a fraud. It binds the town of Goderich effectually for thirty years; it leaves the Provincial Hydro-Electric Commission free to do as it pleases.
That is how this commission takes the upper hand of the people in many parts of the province of Ontario. I am quite willing to admit the right of every hon. member to vote as he pleases, but I am not going to be frightened, by Sir Adam Beck, because in my part of the country no one need be afraid that he will make any more mistakes. In Huron the same state of affairs



exists. What was done in Huron? I have a little knowledge of this matter because of what was done in my own town of Midland. The Hydro-Electric proposed terms. After they had discussed these terms the town tore down all its existing electrical apparatus, and, at a cost of about $15,000, provided a system to meet the Hydro, thinking in the innocence of their hearts that they would have their power furnished at $37. But they had not bound the Hydro in black and white, -and, after there was no backing out, after the $15,000 had been spent, this fair concern, this Hydro-Electric Commission, comes in and taxes them $43 a horsepower. I am not at all afraid of Sir Adam Beck coming into' East Simcoe to discuss hydro-electric matters. I am willing to mept him at any time or any place. I can point to that monument that the commission has erected at a cost of $340,000 inround figures, and T can show that the interest Pas not been paid, not by thousands of dollars, if reasonable allowance be made for expenses. How are these radial votes carried? The other day, I had the temerity to ask Sir Adam Beck what the temper of the people of western Ontario was, as shown by these votes. The House would be led to believe, listening to these gentlemen, that the people are unanimously in favour of these hydro railways. Why, in Sir Adam Beck's own city of London, the scheme was only carried by about 250 or 300 votes.


An hon. MEMBER:: It was 700.


William Humphrey Bennett: But a change of 250 or 300 votes would have altered the result. These gentlemen do not seem to realize that a change of one vote means two in the result; I should have thought that that was apparent to most people who have been in politics. Now, here is Sir Adam Beck, the apostle of the Hydro-Electric, standing in his own city of London and begging and praying them to back up his hydro railways; and yet, when it comes to a vote, you find that a change of 300 votes would have defeated the proposal. These gentlemen have been saying that there was a majority of 700, but I understand that it was nearer-500 or 600. Be that as it may, if this policy were as popular in that part of the country as we are told it is, surely there would have been an overwhelming majority of votes in its favour. And how are these majorities got? In the municipalities where the people believe every state-

ment Sir Adam Beck makes, he stands on the platform and tells the people that he has the assurance that the Dominion Government will give $3,200 a mile, and the local government will give a similar amount and are pledged to do so.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD:: Is that right?


William Humphrey Bennett: Certainly that
is right. The hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Smith) was present at a meeting at which Sir Adam Beck made that statement, and my hon. friend from South Ontario challenged the statement and Sir Adam Beck side-stepped it, though afterwards he admitted it.


Mr. A. C. MACDONELL:: That is not
correct.


William Humphrey Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
wishes to tell my hon. friend from South Ontario that Sir Adam Beck did not tell him that-


Angus Claude Macdonell: I rise to a
question of privilege. The hon. gentleman referred to me as having been at a meeting at which I was not present.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, I did not speak of the hon. gentleman from South Toronto, but the hon. member for South Ontario.


Angus Claude Macdonell: All right.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: May I ask a question for information? I was not at the committee meeting when this question was up. Has the Dominion Government given any assurance of aid to rural tramways in Ontario of $3,200 a mile? Is there any legislation or other Act which commits the Government to that offer?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am not in the secrets of the Government, but I can tell the hon. gentleman this: a couple of years ago a deputation of about two thousand people waited on the Prime Minister, and he gave an emphatic statement to the contrary. He said the matter would be considered, but that, having regard to the fact that every province would be on a parity with the province of Ontario, and that the undertaking of providing electric railways all over the country would be so enormous, he would not make a pledge. And no pledge was given, nor has any been given since, as I understand it. In committee the other day Sir Adam Beck would not make the statement that any pledge had been given. It is hard to tie Sir Adam Beck down. But we will take his own statement:

There is not one precedent or reason why the Dominion Government should not give us a subsidy of $6,400 a mile.
That is the statement of Sir Adam Beck at Stratford, as reported in the Toronto Telegram. He will not deny that. He now tells the people throughout the province that there is no reason why the Dominion Government should not give a subsidy, of $6,400 a mile. A meeting was held at Toronto, I think in January last, when these gentlemen who are admirers of the Hydro-Electric assembled from different parts of Ontario, and a resolution was passed. I am sorry I have not a copy of the document with me; but it was a declaration in favour of asking the Ontario Government to indicate when they would be prepared to hand over their grant of $3,200 a mile. Yet at the meeting the other day, Sir Adam Beck, in the blandest way, said he had never heard of it. Alderman Maguire, who was also at the meeting, was appealed to by me, and he would not go that far. When a direct contradiction was given to myself by Sir Adam Beck-and that is one reason I am speaking on this matter, by way of personal explanation- when he denied that what I said was true, as detailed in that document, I offered, and I offer again to-day, to give $200 to the Bed Cross Society if my statement was not true, provided he would give $200 if it was true. And he very properly, and very gingerly, backed down from that position. These meetings are addressed, as they were in South Ontario, by Sir Adam Beck and others, who gave assurances and promises to the people that they were going to get $6,400 a mile-that is $3,200 a mile each from the Dominion Government and the local Government.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman cannot name one place where any such statement has been made.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman listen again; I quote:
There is not one precedent or reason why the Dominion Government should not give us a subsidy of $6,400 a mile.
I am reading from Sir Adam Beck's own speech.


Donald Sutherland: That does not look as if he was misrepresented.


William Humphrey Bennett: I just wanted the hon.
gentleman to drop into the pit. Here is what Sir Adam Beck said in addition:
154i
At this stage Sir Adam Beck referred to the statement of a previous speaker with reference to the Provincial Government being approached for a subsidy. We expect a subsidy from the Dominion Government, he declared, and we expect some assistance from the Ontario Government. As a member of the Ontario Government I am not prepared to say that the Government of the province should subsidize hydro-radials.
That was in 1914. Since then, these gentlemen have grown stronger, and the result is that they are making the statement, as my [DOT] hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Smith) heard Sir Adam Beck himself make it, that they had the pledge and the assurance that they would have $3,200 a mile. When this' matter came up in the Railway Committee I dared to take a stand in defiance even of the Mayor of Toronto, that great potentate who last year was opposed in the city of Toronto by a man whom he described as a second-hand dealer off York street, and yet 10,000 independent electors in the city of Toronto said: Although it is a proper thing to give the mayor a second term, anything, even a second-hand dealer off York street, is better than Church. That is a mighty poor compliment to Mayor Church. However, Mayor Church came down to tell us how we should vote. The reason I took the view that I did in the committee was: This railway is a transcontinental railway; in the riding of Simcoe we have the terminus of the Canadian Pacific railway, one of these transcontinental railways. At Port MeNicoll day after day during the summer months you can see 50, 60 or 75 cars of bonded freight, which are brought through the city of Toronto by the Canadian Pacific railway and the contents loaded on boats and sent up the lake. Is that good business for Canada, or not? Do my hon. friends from Toronto object to it? If it is good business to have a transcontinental railway with an American connection which brings through to Canadian railways day after day 50 or 60 cars of bonded freight, would it not be equally good for the Canadian Northern railway to have a good connection in the United States so that it might bring through 50 or 60 carloads of freight day in and day out? The Canadian Northern line runs through my riding within 30 miles of the waters of Georgian bay. It is the aim and ambition of the Canadian Northern railway to duplicate the system of the Canadian1 Pacific railway from Orillia to a point on the Georgian bay somewhere near Midland, and thus be in a position to go through to the

United States and bring freight from there through Canada, even to the city of Toronto, much, I suppose, to the objection of these gentlemen who so hate tihe Canadian Northern that they cannot stand even the name of it. What ie all the trouble in the Niagara Peninsula? The Canadian Northern have built or acquired by purchase 73 miles of railway there; you may call it tramway, because they are electric roads. The city of St. Catharines, the largest city in that district, passed a resolution asking the Railway Committee to allow this charter to go through for the building of this road from St. Catharines on to Toronto and from St. Catharines to a point wthere it will touch the American border. Why should I set up my judgment against the city of St. Catharines?


John Hampden Burnham: Why set it up against the whole province of Ontario, as represented by the Government of Ontario?


William Humphrey Bennett: I do not know that the Government of Ontario represents the whole province of Ontario in anything in particular. Of course, the Government of the province of Ontario are entitled to their view with respect to the hydro business.


John Hampden Burnham: But the city of St. Catharines knocks it out.


William Humphrey Bennett: What did St. Catharines do? The mayor of St. Catharines came here with a resolution of the City Council begging that in the interests of the city this Bill should pass, and with another resolution that the mayor should not come to 'the meeting as opposing the Bill unless he came in his private capacity. The mayor of St. Catharines, a most estimable gentleman, frankly admitted that he represented himself, and not the city; and,, according to the minutes of their meetings, the St. Catharines Board of Trad,e and the City Council were unanimously in favour of the line going through. Other roads run through that section of the country; the Canadian Pacific railway runs through there, in amalgamation with another road known as the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo railway; the Grand Trunk also is there. All the city of St. Catharines is asking is that this line pass through there, so that there may be a bridge at the border, and so that trade may be brought in from the United, States. How will that interfere with the Hydro-Electric if they want to build a railway line through that district? The Hydro Commission says to the Cana-
TMr. W. H. Bennett-3
dian Northern Railway Company: we will build a line from the border to Toronto, and as you are only a transcontinental line, we will make arrangements with you to run over your line. Whoever heard of a transcontinental line being superseded by an electric railway? There is an electric railway running from Grimsby to Hamilton, and this Government-owned road-because the Hydro-Electric will be municipally owned-is going to duplicate that system. In the next breath they say: save us from the competition of the Canadian Northern. I would ask gentlemen who did not live in the province of Ontario not to be carried^ away with the idea that the hydro is such a sacred thing in the province of Ontario that the people will not lay their hands upon it. AH they want to do is to lay their hands upon it in the different municipalities. The people of the city of Hamilton are not objecting to this road. I understand that many citizens of Hamilton are anxious that this railway should, pass through their city. In view of the fact that the city of St. Catharines, the chief city in that district, says that its people are practically unanimous in their desire to have this road built, I am not going to take an opposite view simply because Sir Adam Beck, the hydro people, and the city of Toronto desire to oppose the building of the road.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the hon. gentleman tell the committee how long ago it is since the city of St. Catharines sent in that request, and how many protests have come from that district since the request was received?


William Humphrey Bennett: I will make with the hon. gentleman the same sporting bet that I made with Sir Adam Beck-$100 or $200 -in support of the statement that he cannot produce any protest from the city of St. Catharines against the construction of this railway. I thought that Sir Adam Beck would take up the challenge when he had such an excellent opportunity of making good, instead: of falling down in a most lamentable way before the committee on that question. I have no interest in the Canadian Northern, good, bad, or indifferent. My only interest in the matter is that I see the advantages for the riding of East Simeoe of a transcontinental railway having its terminus on the Georgian bay. I invite Sir Adam Beck or any of these gentlemen to come into the riding

of East Simcoe and- attempt to put me on the pillory for having voted for this Canadian Northern Bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon, member for South Oxford proposed a motion that the committee do now rise. I have taken the trouble to look up the authorities, and I find that there is no such motion. Am I to take it that the hon. gentleman means to move that the Chairman do leave the Chair?	.


Donald Sutherland: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That being so, I have to refer the committee to Rule 17-A, which reads:
Every motion heretofore debatable made upon routine proceedings, except adjournment motions.... shall be debatable; but all other motions shall be decided without debate or amendment.
And in Bourinot I find at page 524 that this motion in committee is equivalent in its effect to a motion for the adjournment of the House. It is therefore my ruling that further debate cannot be had until the motion of the hon. member for South Oxford is disposed of. The.motion is that I do now leave the Chair.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Before you finally rule, I beg to take exception to your ruling, respectfully. I think the motion of the hon. member for Oxford is quite in order. The rule that you have just stated applies not to a committee of the House but to a motion in the House itself. We are not in the House, but in a committee of the House, and I call your attention to the rule which you have just cited:
Every motion heretofore debatable made upon routine proceedings, except adjournment motions and every motion standing on the order of the proceedings for the day, or for the concurrence in a report of a standing or a special committee, or for the previous question or for the third reading of a Bill, or for the adjournment of the House when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, or for the adoption, in Committee of the Whole, or of Supply, or of Ways and Means of the resolution, clause, section, preamble or title under consideration shall be debatable; but all other Motions shall be decided without debate or amendment.
This rule applies exclusively to proceedings of the House, not proceedings in committee, and therefore it seems to me that the iriotion of my hon. friend is quite in order.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: My ruling was given, I may say, after consultation with the Clerk of the House, and, with all due deference to
the hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, it is still my belief that Rule 17-A quite clearly applies to the committee. My understanding of the rule and its effect, as laid down by Bourinot at page 524, is that the motion that the Chairman do now leave the Chair is equivalent to an adjournment motion, and I have so decided. That being the case, the motion must toe put, I submit, without debate.


Wilfrid Laurier: My contention is that Bourfnot's comments were written long before the amendment made to the rules in 1913, and applies only to the old rules. This amended rule from which you are now quoting was made in 1913 at the time of the Naval Bill, and therefore Bourinot did not write at all about this question. The rule which you have stated applies to every motion made with the Speaker in the Chair. There is nothing in that Section 17-A which applies to any committee of the House. All rules which restrict the liberty of discussion are to be construed very strictly; and, unless there is something which says that the same rule shall apply when in committee as when the Chairman is in the Chair, I think the ruling is wrong.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: While it is quite true that the volume of Bourinot from which I have quoted was written before the present rules of the House were adopted, I referred to it only on one point, that a motion that the Chairman do rise is equivalent to a motion for adjournment. I must submit that on that point it is quite competent for me to quote Bourinot, notwithstanding that the rules which we now have were adopted in 1913. I may still further point out to the committee that it is, I believe, a settled practice that the rules laid down for the guidance of the House apply to the Committee of the Whole unless especially restricted. But if the right hon. gentleman will refer to rule 17^A he will see that in the second last line reference is made, among some of the exceptions, to the Committee of the Whole, theretoy implying that the very rule in question does apply to proceedings in the committee. Under those circumstances I must rule that the motion of the hon. member for South Oxford is not debatable.


Wilfrid Laurier: If that be so I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should drop his motion and then the discussion may proceed on the first clause of the Bill.
[DOT]3454


Donald Sutherland: I did not intend to .-get the House into a tangle from which -we would not be able to extricate our-'selvies; but, if it would, meet the convenience of the House, I would move that the committee rise.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not understand that there is any such motion. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that his motion was that the Chairman do leave the Chair. If he makes that motion, I have already ruled that there can be no ddbate on the motion, that it must be put forthwith. Am I to understand that the hon. gentleman adheres to his motion?


Donald Sutherland: Yes.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The motion is that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
Motion negatived: yeas, 22; nays,
Mr. A. Q- MACDONELL (South Toronto): I understand that the - Bill is now before the Chair. I desire to say something on it, particularly because, when these two Bills were last before the Railway Committee, I was unable to be present, and had no opportunity of expressing my views at that time. I wish, before discussing the Bill, to make a few remarks with reference to the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. W. H. Bennett). He seemed to work himself up into a state of great agitation about the merits of The Bill and the demerits of the opposition to it. He concluded by saying that he has no interest in the Canadian Northern railway. I, of course, acquit him of having any such interest. I would like to correct my hon. friend from Simcoe with regard to some of the statements of fact that he has made and in particular, I would dike to have an opportunity of checking up some of the figures which he has given regarding the price of power at Barrie and Goderich. I find that when this matter was before the committee above one hundred protests came in from different parts of Ontario and amongst others the following from St. Catharines, which city is said to favour these Bills.
St. Catharines, Ont., March 15. Chairman, Railway Committee,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Niagara district Hydro-radial Union representing all municipalities in counties of Lincoln, Welland and Haldimand reaffirms its abjection to extending or renewing certain electric railway charters which would seriously inter-

fere with projected hydro-radial lines in Niagara peninsula.
(Sgd.) W. B. Burgoyne,
President.
Another one was received to the following effect:
St. Catharines, Ont., March 15. Chairman, Railway Committee,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Louth township council opposing Bills extending and renewing electric railway charters that will seriously interfere with projected hydro-electric railway through this municipality.
(Sgd.) C. H. Claus,
Reeve.
This is a township, I understand, adjoining the city of St. Catharines. I have also a further telegram, which was referred to in the remarks of my hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) signed by Mr. Stewart, reeve of Granton township, which township I believe also adjoins St. Catherines, to the same effect, and which reads as follows:
Granton township council reiterates its opposition to the extension or renewal of electric railway charters in this district as they would seriously interfere with projected hydro-electric radial lines through this municipality.
I do not wisih to burden the House by reading the almost numberless protests received on 'behalf of almost all the municipalities in the central and western parts of Ontario .against doing what this House is ajsked to do to-day. I desire to be as fair ,as I can about this matter, the position is this: The Canadian Northern have in their strong box the two charters which are referred to in Bills Nos. 8 and 24. These ,are old charters that have been carried over, the first for 17 years and the second for 13 years. They have had four or five renewals each. As to the bulding of the old kind of railway I have no objection. Sir Adam Beck has no objection and no objection has been taken by the Railway Committee against the building of railways in accordance with the old idea. I want to tell hon. gentlemen who are not from the province of Ontario that in all likelihood they may be in time going through the very same experience in their own provinces that we are going through now. The people are tired of corporation owned railways, and corporation owned electrical power, heating, lighting and such like publio utilities. They have decided that they will as far as possible own and operate these utilities themselves. The Hydro-Electric Railway Association has been born of the

Hydro-Electric Power Commission. The Hydro-Electric Commission has for some years .past undertaken not the generation but the distribution to the people of Ontario of energy for light, heat and power at cost. The opposition that is made to these Bills is no man's, no company's opposition; it is the opposition of the people of Ontario because they want to operate theise railways that it is now hoped to have operated by companies. With that in the past we have had no quarrel. We have no complaint to make about subsidies having been, granted to railways in the past, because in their day and generation they have done important work, but a new era has come in so far as street and Hydro-Electric railways are concerned- The province of Ontario will shortly be covered by a network of these radial railways. Let me explain what they are. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission first of all gets a request from a municipality to build a railway. Sixty per cent of the municipalities of Western Ontario have requested the Hydro-Electric Commission to build their radial railways. In many cases these railways have been surveyed and the plant and a'll necessary material in connection with their construction are now 'being procured. The money is raised in this way: The Hydro-Electric Power Commission issues its bonds, which are guaranteed by the Ontario Government, and they are sold to the best advantage. Sir Adam Beck said .before the Railway Committee the other day, he has made the public statement throughout the country on many occasions, and I never knew a public or private statement to be made by Sir Adam Beck that was not absolutely true, that he had offers of money at 4i peT cent for three or five-year bonds. They are shortterm bonds, but the money can be got for the handling of these great enterprises. The municipalities through which these lines are constructed get a certain railway mileage constructed at a certain cost connecting a particular system or radial railways and the debentures of the municiplities are given to the Hydro-Electric Commission to hold in trust so that in case there might come a rainy day when these roads would not pay, they would be there to answer to a deficit. The Hydro-Radial Association, under the Hydro-Radial Act of the Ontario Legislature, will operate these roads, and the present scheme of operation is on the basis of providing a sinking fund and paying all the interest and carrying charges,
so that the public will be getting their railway service at net cost. It is desired that the middleman, or the corporation, shall be eliminated in Ontario as far as the street or radial railway service is concerned. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Sutherland) called attention to a unanimous resolution passed by the Legislature of Ontario protesting against the renewal of these charters.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: When was that passed?


Mr. MACDOKELL:: On the 8th of
Miarch.


George Eulas Foster: Read the resolution.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I have not a copy of the resolution here, but it was read by my hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) on Friday and it is on Hansard. In addition, the representative of The Attorney General of the province of Ontario was at the Railway Committee and he said that the Government of ' Ontario had instructed him to appear there and oppose these charters. If he did so it was not because he desired to make an indiscriminate protest against such railways as this, but because the Canadian Northern, having had ample time to build, had failed to do so and the Hydro-Electric Commission were now in a position to proceed. There is a particularly well-founded reason in the objection that is made in reference to these particular roads. In all the years they have had these charter rights to build, this company have made no attempt to build a main line from Toronto to the international boundary at Niagara Falls or thereabouts. They have made no attempt to build even from Toronto to Hamilton. At the last municipal elections in Toronto, by way of further backing up the Hydro-Electric railway from Toronto to the International border, the people voted about $5,000,000 as a contribution towards securing the right of way for such a road between Toronto and Hamilton. That right of way, 100 feet in width, has been very largely bought, and it is intended to build upon it not only the power transmission lines, but also the hydro-electric railway. It is felt that it is simply a waste of money to duplicate that line. There is practically only one way for a railroad to go from Toronto to Hamilton, and that is as the crow flies. The road runs close to lake Ontario all the way, and if these two roads were built, they would be within a stone's

throw of each other all the way from Toronto to Hamilton. The Hydro-Electric intend to build that road. They have already acquired some of the right of way. Are the Canadian Northern, then, really sincere in their desire to build their road? They may build it, it is true, but it will be simply a matter of construction. The cost will have to be taken care of in some way, either by the people of Ontario or by the people of Canada. Why should we not allow Ontario to do what it wants to do? We have every reason to have confidence in the HydroElectric Commission, because the predictions made by Sir Adam Beck have all been more than amply fulfilled, notwithstanding the statements made by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). Roughly speaking the cost of private lighting in districts served by the Hyd :o-Electric has been reduced by more than one-half, and street lighting, shop lighting and factory power by two-thirds. These facts speak for themselves. If hydro power were not cheap, would people buy it, and urge the extension of the system, as they are doing now? A short recapitulation I have here shows that the Hydro-Electric Power Commission commenced business in 1910, supplying eight municipalities, and the horse-power supplied was 750; in 1911, twenty-two municipalities, 13,500 horsepower; 1912, thirty-three municipalities,
30.000	horse-power; 1913, forty-eight municipalities, 47,500 horse-power; 1914, eighty-two municipalities, 82,500 horse-power; 1915 one hundred and ten municipalities, 128,000 horse-power; and in 1916, 1130 municipalities are using or will use 150,000 horse-power.
The commission say that at that rate of increase they will require 40,000 horse-power per annum to meet the increased demand of the municipalities. They say in their report:
We have no fewer than 130 municipalities asking for power, and at a low estimate we shall want 160,000 horse-power in December of the present year. ,
And they go on to say that in the future they will be able to use the entire power supply of Niagara Falls, which is some
900.000	horse-power. This enormous public-owned corporation gets not one dollar of profit; the profit all goes back in cheap rates. It is only natural that, distributing power in wholesale quantities as they do, they can do it very much cheaper than the smaller companies throughout the country. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission- can use its power -for light, heat, -and the run-
[Mr. Macdonell.l
ning of a radial -system at a trifling cost. This is possible because the radial will use the -same right of way as the power line, and it can be supplied with just as much power as it needs. It does seem to me that we are in a new era with regard to the use of electrical power. It is only natural that a rural district should' much prefer an electrically operated road to a steam road; it is- not only cheaper and -quicker, -but has many other advantages. So far as possible, these hydro radials will use the same machinery, the same distributing plaint, the same right of way, and everything else that they can possibly use in common with the Hydro-Electric Power Commission. Two or three weeks ago, when the Hydro-Electric Power Commission met in Toronto, no les|s than 378 -municipalities in Ontario had asked for hydro-radial surveys to be made, and over $100,000 has bem spent on these -surveys. That shows to what an extent these railways are desired by the people of this province. The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, and the municipalities of the province, are almost unanimous in their appeal to this Government to stop granting any more railway charters in districts where the Hydro-Radial has made surveys and intends to operate. The people want the public-owned railway, and not the private-owned road, and they are prepared to pay for these radials.
None of the municipalities that gave guarantees in the past with regard to eleetrical power distribution have been asked to give one dollar to the commission under their guarantee. The commission has so conducted its operations that it has kept well within the estimated expenditure. The expenditure includes both the sinking fund for the redemption of the debentures that were issued to cover the original cost, and -also operating and distribution expenses, and in no case have the municipalities been called on to make good their guarantees. We have this unique result: the municipalities have public-owned utilities for which they have not paid, except in' rates and dues; and those rates and dues are very much less than what they previously paid to the corporations.


George Eulas Foster: The municipality simply gives a guarantee?


Angus Claude Macdonell: Yes. That guarantee is a debenture, which is locked up in the Hydro vaults. No one has access to it;
April 3, 1916
it is not used, hypothecated or pledged in any way, but remains there until by the effluxion of time, and by the payment of dues and rates, the municipality has retired the bond.


William Humphrey Bennett: Assuming, for
the sake of argument, that the radial railway was not a success, would not the municipality be the first party called upon to redeem their pledge? If not, why go through the form of taking the debenture?


Angus Claude Macdonell: Nobody imagines for a moment that this security is illusory. It is there for business purposes and, if any loss occurred, it would, of course, be drawn [DOT]upon, but as the years go by and the sinking fund nears completion, and the interest is being paid, the output becomes smaller, the interest becomes less, and the security is being redeemed. The people of Ontario have shown such enthusiasm in the matter that the Toronto civic by-law to which I referred was passed by a vote of four to one; there were about 20,000 votes for the by-law and about 5,000 against it. That shows that the people believe that this measure will be carried to a proper and successful conclusion.
The statement has been made that Sir Adam Beck stated that this Government would guarantee a subsidy of $3,200 a mile. I was in the Railway Committee at every meeting except the one at which the vote was taken, when I was unavoidably absent, but I heard Sir Adam Beck state definitely that he had no pledge from the Government. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) this afternoon asked if any legislation had been passed to guarantee that subsidy. There has been no such legislation arid Sir Adam Beck made no attempt to deceive the Railway Committee or any one else. Application was made to this Government for that aid, and the matter, I understand, is being considered, and there is no reason for any one to say that it will not be reasonably and fairly considered.


William Humphrey Bennett: I did not say
that Sir Adam Bock made the statement to the committee; of course, he did not. He made the statement at public meetings throughout the country when the commission were endeavouring to get the people to vote " yea " on the strength of his statement that he had the pledge of the subsidy of $3,200 a mile from the Dominion Government.


John Hampden Burnham: : Was it not "assurance" and not "pledge"?


William Humphrey Bennett: Pledge. My hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. William Smith) made the statement.


Angus Claude Macdonell: We get it by hearsay that Sir Adam Beck made the statement.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. member for
South Ontario said so, and Sir Adam Beck at the meeting admitted to the hon. member for South Ontario that he had made that statement.


Angus Claude Macdonell: now and taking up some little time. This is the place where the matter should be discussed because it is a national matter, which affects every' province in the Dominion. It is a question of home rulle for the provinces. What one province wants and asks for fairly and reasonably it should have. The Legislature of the province of Ontario, comprising 108 or more members of different shades of politics coming from various parts of the province, have unanimously passed this resolution, protesting against these Bills. Is their voice to be listened to? Certainly it should. What they want, they should get if it is reasonable. There is no reasonable argument against such a proposition. They simply ask that these Bills shall not be reported, because, if they are, the calculations of the province will be upset entirely; it will mean the duplication of their line from Toronto to the international boundary; it will mean the needless expense of millions or tens of millions of dollars. The hydro people will have either to take over the Canadian Northern railway at a greatly enhanced price or to build their own line, and in that case there will be duplication, although, from present appearances I think the hydro line will be built before the Canadian Northern railway line. These Bills have been renewed four or five times; they have been on the statute books inoperative and stale, for thirteen years in one case and for seventeen in the other, and all that is asked is that they be left on the statute books without any further renewal.
Something was said about public ownership and the cost and the impossibility of operating publicly-owned railways at cost. We in Canada are behind some of our neighbours in the states in not having as many radial railways as they have, but we have some publicly-owned lines. In the western and central paTt of Ontario, from which this strong feeling comes, we have in the Guelph street railway a sample of what can be done in publicly-owned and operated street railways. The Guelph street railway was municipalised some years ago, and it now pays a dividend of from 20 to 25 per cent. The railway recently built from London to Port Stanley was jeered at, just as these hydro-radial roads have been, but it was put in operation and in the first six months, before it really got down to business, it showed a net profit_ of $10,000. Therefore, there is no reason to predict that these publicly-owned and operated

railways will be carried on at a loss. There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the Estimates, and the plans and undertakings made for the ultimate fulfilment of the intention and design of the Hydro-Electric . Commission. They have undertaken everything in a thorough and businesslike way and they can be trusted to' handle this matter in the public interest.
As I say, the Hydro-Electric Commission has reduced the cost of electric power from 100 to 300 per cent, and there is no reason to believe that the operation of this HydroRadial Railway Commission will be any less successful, or will be less a public benefit. I would ask the committee to bear in mind the often-expressed wish of the province of Ontario and the municipalities that are spending their tens of thousands of dollars for the introduction of this system, and to be fair, about it and even generous about it if necessary, and leave the people of Ontario to work out in their own time and by their own methods the successful operation of this hydro-radial system.


John Hampden Burnham: It seems to me to be wholly unnecessary to dwell upon the success or otherwise of the Hydro. That matter has been before the public of Ontario, and the success of the system has been endorsed by both parties repeatedly and almost unanimously. Underlying this whole question, of course, is the principle of public ownership. That also has received almost universal public approval. At the present time, as I understand it, the argument is that the Canadian Northern Railway should have an extension of their charter for a certain line. If it were a matter of justice, of absolutely clear justice, whether they should have their charter extended or not, the question of public ownership and the rights of the province of Ontario in the future would not really come in. But such is not the case; it is merely a matter of ordinary, common business advantage. And when the Government of Canada chose to tie itself up, by guarantees or otherwise, to the Canadian Northern Railway, and now find themselves in a tangle over it, they are only trying to excuse one fault by another, and they can not really aggravate the situation by opposing the express wish of the province of Ontario as represented by its Government. I took occasion to ask the Government of Ontario-that is, to ask the Prime Minister -some little time ago if they intended to oppose this Bill. I wanted the fact brought out technically and properly. They said they were instructing and send-

ing their men to that end. If this committee feels that it has a right, for an ordinary business matter, not involving the principle of justice, to oppose the province of Ontario and do a serious injury to the whole principle of their hydro-electric scheme, the very darling of the people of Ontario, and as asserted, to cause very serious loss to the province of Ontario, this committee, and the Government of Canada will have done the province of Ontario a very serious wrong.


Mr. H. B. MORPHY (North Perth):: Being sponsor on the Order Paper for this Bill, I desire to make a few observations. I would have much preferred to speak later in the debate, but I have been suffering from serious complaints affecting my hearing and my throat, and think it better I should speak to-day. The Bill has been before the Committee on Railways on four or five different occasions. Since I entered Parliament I have never seen any Bill that had so much attention given to it, especially by those opposed to it, as has been given to the two Bills in question. Those who favoured the Bill were hardly, if at all, heard. Under these circumstances the committee voted, by the very considerable majority of two to one, in favour of putting both these Bills through. The opposition to the Bill, as is well known, came from the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario, and one specific argument put forward in the Railway Committee, as here to-day, has been that the matter is one peculiar to the province of Ontario. That view is not a broad one, and I entirely refuse to accede to it and expressly dissent from it. It is , true that the radial roads in question will be provincial, but it is equally true that the Canadian Northern railway system is a national highway affecting not only Ontario but all the provinces of the Dominion. Therefore, I am of the opinion that this question should be dealt with from a broad and national standpoint. In dealing with the argument put forward, that the Ontario Government have sent here a resolution asking the members of this House to oppose these Bills, had I been a member of the Ontario House-a body for which I have every respect-in the light I now have, I would have stood up, even if I had been the only member to do so, and would have voted against [DOT] any such resolution being sent to this Parliament. To yield to that , argument would be to surrender all the cardinal functions of this House; it would
be to acknowledge the principle that, because of a local situation and of a resolution sent from some provincial House, this Parliament should accede to these requests and recede from its position, whether well taken or not. I can not submit to that myself, and I do not propose to. Some of the members from Ontario are quite inconsistent in this regard, especially those on this side of the House.


An hon. MEMBER:: Talk about the Bill, and not about the members.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Some of the members, I say, are inconsistent-and I am addressing myself to you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the members who support the commission will not be so arbitrary, or so arrogant that they will not permit a member who takes part in this debate to even mention them- I do not apprehend that it is part of the privilege of members to object to such mention. They say that the principle at stake is one that is provincial, not general. So was the question of free wheat in the West. Yet all these gentlemen who were so glib to-day rushed in to take care of the western farmer upon this question, which is more specific to the western provinces' than this is specific to the province of Ontario. I think the matter of these Canadian Northern Railway Bills is essentially a matter for this House. I equally think that the matter of free wheat was essentially a matter for this House. My view is that members of the Dominion Parliament represent in this House, more than their respective provinces or counties; they represent the whole Dominion. To hold any other view would, in my opinion, be derogatory to the position hon. members hold in this House as representatives of the people of Canada. Hydro-Electric railways are essentially provincial. But the Canadian Pacific, Grand Trunk, Grand Trunk Pacific, Transcontinental, and Canadian Northern railways are Federal railways, for the general advantage of Canada, and upon qutestions affecting all these great roads, I hold, every member has the right to express his opinion from the national point of view, and should do so. The Hydro-Radial Commission and those interested in it knew that these charters existed, and had been renewed, and that the railways proposed to be built under them had been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. They knew that these charters formed part of the Canadian

Northern railway and were intended as an important feature to that system.
They knew that about $1,800,000 had been invested by the Canadian Northern people in building lines and making surveys and paying for lands for entrance into the city of Hamilton. They knew that bonds were sold to innocent purchasers, and it would be unfair to them if such treatment were handed out to the Canadian Northern people. They knew that this country, through this Parliament, has been committed to a guarantee of $46,000,000' and an advance by way of loan and otherwise of something like $30,000,000; that the provinces of-the West, all of them, I think, have pledged their credit to this great national highway by way of advances or guarantees; that everything that goes from Quebec to the Atlantic in connection with the Canadian Northern railway goes as a national undertaking to which the people of the country are committed. When the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission sends its steam roller down here with flanges on it to scrape everybody off the road, I am impressed by the fact that that steam roller is on the wrong track. I cannot conceive it as fair that hon. gentlemen here should attempt to twist this matter. The real issue is the national idea which is embodied in this great Tailway; the side issue is the provincial element. That latter element seems to be put above the national element by some people, and to overshadow it in all its phases. There is nothing to prevent the Hydro-Electric railway from going on with its work. It has to compete with the Canadian Pacific railway, the National Transcontinental, the Grand Trunk railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific. Are they afraid of this alleged bankrupt railway, that they cannot compete with it? The confession that this would be a death blow to hydro is the weakest argument that I have ever heard. It seems to he that I am a better champion of hydro than these gentlemen. I do not think that they are living up to the great possibilities of hydro in this country. A national highway of nearly 10,000 miles is surely worthy of consideration; a splendidly built, well-ballasted and well-equipped transcontinental road, a credit to the Dominion, serving the people of the East as well as of the West, handling more than one-third of the wheat crop yearly, having grades unsurpassed by any other Transcontinental road. One engine hauls from Quebec to Vancouver, a train about a quarter of a mile long with fifteen Pullman and 
baggage cars, and the same engine hauls it from Vancouver back over the mountains to Quebec. I think that is very creditable. One of these railways will perhaps be the keystone to the salvation of our country when the whole deplorable railway situation comes to be settled.


John Hampden Burnham: Do they think that if
they should not get this extension, it would be a blot on their title if they should want to see out the whole Transcontinental system?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not know anything about blots or titles; I have not attempted to argue anything about title. If my hon. friend will be content for a while he will probably see a little later what I am leading to. There are $400,000,000 invested in this great Transcontinental system. A serious situation confronts this country. I do not know that it is well for any member to speak of it, but since it is in my mind I purpose referring to it. A serious situation confronts this Parliament and the country upon the whole railway question. Railway conditions constitute the great problem for the near future of Canada. I ask hon. gentlemen: having assisted the Canadian Northern railway, why injure it? Why attempt to pull it down? Would you extend your left hand to a man in the water, pull him to shore and rescue him from drowning, and then hit him with your right and send him back into the water? It is not the ordinary way of doing business, but that is what hon. gentlemen are doing who voted for the grant of $45,000,000; who committed themselves to grants made by this Parliament. A tidal wave of local conditions and local feeling which they cannot resist causes them. to swallow themselves and swallow their votes. I thought better of the province of Ontario than that it would produce men who would do just that thing. The Hydro-Electric Commission wants subsidies from this Parliament, but they do not want any one else to get any subsidies. The Hydro railway claim was based and founded on the proposition of obtaining Dominion subsidies. Can they come back to this Parliament after the attitude they have taken and ask for subsidies? To my mind, the Hydro Commission has made the most egregious mistake of its existence. I believe that Hydro is greater than its supporters in this House or than the Chairman of the Commission believe it to be. I have al-

ways been a supporter of the Hydro; I have 'looked forward to its glorious possibilities. I believe that hon. gentlemen make a mistake when they come here and say that they are not asking for subsidies from this Parliament; that they do not want subsidies; that they will build the roads themselves. I say that they are making a mistake, because I 'believe that Hydro shouM have the support of this Parliament as a great national undertaking, even though it is provincial. I am prepared to go further than friends of Hydro here in that regard. What are the possibilities of Hydro? Lake Superior, with its thousands of square miles of water, is the basin that sends down through the various waterways and channels to our lower lakes-and to the province of Ontario, where the Ontario Government has caught it-a stream of silver which is being turned into a stream of gold, an asset greater in value than all the minerals which have been taken out of the ground and all the minerals yet in the ground, an asset greater than the fisheries or timbers of our country. Why? Because these last are evanescent and will pass away, but Hydro will last forever. Every drop of water in all these splendid watersheds contributes to this great asset to the people of Ontario, who are making splendid use of it. As they have such a heritage as this, I arm not fearful of the lack of Hydro power to pe able to compete with the Canadian Northern Railway, with the Canadian Pacific Railway, or with any other railway. It is a confession of weakness to suggest any such thing. Its ability to compete is undeniable. They have cut power rates in half, as the hon. member for South Oxford has said; they have cut lighting rates in half. The ability to compete is general, and has been of great benefit to thp people of Ontario. But is is 6aid that they cannot compete at Niagara, right at the centre of power, in that district which is industrially the greatest in Ontario. It is said that the Canadian Northern Railway is taking a little piece of right of way in the most densely populated part of Ontario, a district where the hum of industry is heard; a district that will some day require three or four additional railroads. That district will then furnish a splendid paying business to this great Hydro- Electric railway system, to the Canadian Northern, to the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo, to the Canadian Pacific railway,
and to the Grand Trunk. Unless I am mistaken that development will occur in spite of the heavy drain of the reconstruction period following the war. This charter is not a new charter. These gentlemen have forgotten to tell the House that since the Canadian 'Northern railway took over this charter under Bill No. 8, within the last six years, they have, within the last two years, built 12 miles of railway, and yet they are referred to as paper charter mongers. They have, as has been stated, built 76 miles of road in that particular section of the country. What for? To be links and feeders to their transcontinental system from the Niagara frontier inwards to Toronto, to tap the lake traffic, to better the trade for their own lines, with their own men, under their own management, so that they can give to the West cheaper freight rates, so that they can receive from the steamers on the lower lake system of the province of Ontario freight that comes cheaper by lake, so that they can get in their coal at different points and to the best advantage. This will benefit the whole Canadian Northern railway system which the Government has pledged itself to support.


John Hampden Burnham: 'They are not shut out.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Who wants somebody
else to run their business? The HydroElectric is a provincial line. What benefit can they be to the Canadian Northern railway that they cannot be to the Canadian Pacific railway? If they object to the Canadian Northern railway, why should they not object to the Canadian Pacific railway running? Is it the case that every charter that is going to be asked for is going to be condemned because the HydroElectric Commission want to take that particular right of way?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I trow not. I hope we have not yet got to that situation in the Dominion of Canada. That being the situation, where do we stand to-day? I do not know if it has appealed to hon. gentlemen as it has to me, that there was no reason that I can clearly see why the HydroElectric Commission should have come to this House. There is no sign of any kind, nor has it been contended, that the Canadian Northern railway is seeking to. gain any advantage over the Hydro-Electric Railway Commission. The Canadian

Northern railway is on this ground, it has spent nearly $2,000,000 and it has committed itself to its bond-holders. There is room for the Hydro-electric to go alongside of the Canadian Northern railway or any place else through the district, to make their own connections with any points they choose. Then why this agitation? I feel that the agitation,, is one of those unkind things that sometimes happen in public as well as in private life, they thought the Canadian Northern Railway was a good thing to hit because everybody has been hitting it, and they chase down here to attempt to stampede this Parliament on the plea that it a death blow to the Hydro. Not one of them has said so.


John Hampden Burnham: Sir Adam Beck said so.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The chairman of the commission endeavoured to appeal to the Railway Committee on that line. Why? Because another railway is in on the ground and is building its lines? It seems to me that the Bill is being opposed on sentiment. There is nothing in the argument against the Bill that appeals to me, or that would appeal to the reason of any *representative who gives fair, honest study to the situation and who tries to act fairly and honestly with his conscience and to the people whom he represents. It is said that the Chairman of the HydroElectric Commission is asking $100,000,000 -he puts it at $80,000,000, but other people say it will take $100,000,000-for the development of this system in welstern Ontario. A friend from eastern Ontario says that they will want another $100,000,000 in their section. There is just $200,000,000 that is being aimed at in this war time. They are very free to say that this railway is bankrupt and cannot finance new lines. But the question of financing' for the Hydro-electric is in the future, and it	does	seem to	me that in
the very near future financing may become very precarious. We do not know exactly where that $200,000,000 is going to come from; nobody tries to tell us. They tell us that the Government are going to guarantee and aid the municipalities which endorse the project. But we must not forget that this is war time. Can any man tell me how far the effect of the war will go in hindering the financing of either that or any other big scheme in this country? I look to one factor in our national life that relates to the period of reconstruction after 
the war. Can hon. gentlemen tell me how many immigrants we are going to have, having regard to the wastage in Europe of man power, having regard to the wastage in England, in Ireland and in Scotland, having regard to the upbuilding of the destroyed towns, villages, cities, countries, the very lands of Europe? It is possible that Europe will need all her mem for her own. rehabilitation. Where is our great influx of immigration to come from? Without immigration this country will be thrown upon its own resources. Our railways already constructed will be thrown upon their resources. Is it good policy to throw competition into our national railway systems, either now or just .after the war? I would say to my hon. friends opposing this Bill that they should hold themselves in patience. Our existing railways will have a hard enough row to hoe. I feel that under these circumstances we must carefully guard against inflation; we must carefully guard against undue criticism of established industries; we must carefully conserve the vested interests of this country. I am not at all afraid to use the word "interests." Some people cast it up as a slur; "Oh, he is in favour of the interests." I have met that cry on the platform and in the committee, and I have had the charge made through the press. I pay no attention to it. I stand here as a member of this House, reserving to myself my own good judgment to vote as I think right; and if my constituents feel that I have voted wrongly, it is up to them to say so, and I shall he perfectly content with their verdict. But on this question, as the father or sponsor of this Bill, I ask the Parliament of Canada here assembled to consider the principle upon which they are voting, to consider it in its broad and national scope. If that is conscientiously done, as I know it will be, I have no doubt that this House will pass this Bill as Bills of a similar nature have been passed by it from time immemorial.


George Eulas Foster: Is the purpose oi these charters which my hon. friend has advocated so well this afternoon, to provide for through traffic?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: One of the Bills, No. 24.


George Eulas Foster: They do not look so much to local traffic as to securing a channel for through traffic.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: That is the main thing; feeders.


George Eulas Foster: Is it impossible that if the hydro-electric has a road, the same object might be gained by getting running rights over that road, and so subserve the through purposes of the Canadian Northern railway?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I should think that would be possible. Conference after conference took place. The Cfenadian Northern dropped one section of the proposed Bill. There are many things that might be done, but I am not authorized to say how far they would go towards carrying out that suggestion.


John Gillanders Turriff: It has been rather a pleasure for me to be here this afternoon and listen to the discussion, if for nothing else than to observe the coming to life again of our old friend from East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett). Those of us who were in this House prior to 1911 remember him very often dealing doughty blows to his opponents, but from that day until the present we have scarcely heard from him. However, I think my hon. friend sees the trend of public affairs, sees the handwriting on the wall and has come to the conclusion that he will soon be back in Opposition again, and that it is necessary for him to get into fighting trim. Therefore, he comes forward and deals some good blows to those sitting around him. We have spent a good de&l of the time of Parliament in connection with, these Bills. They were up before the Railway Committee for a number of days. My hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) says there has been more time spent on them than on any other Bill since he has been in the House. Why should all this time be spent on these Bills? There is one simple way in which the matter could be decided once and for all. What is the attitude of the Government on this question? The Government is responsible for the legislation that passes through this House and for these Bills going through or not going through. If the people of Ontario are going to be turned down by the passage of these Bills, who is it that is turning them down? The Government of Canada, representing largely as they do the province of Ontario, are the ones who have turned them down. When these Bills were before the Railway Committee there were only two things that prevented them from being defeated there. One was the rather unfortunate manner in which the case was presented by Sir Adam Beck. He had a thoroughly good case, but presented it in such a way that he spoiled it absolutely and he drove a great deal of
support away by his manner in dealing with it. The other thing that prevented the defeat of these Bills by the Railway Committee was the fact that the hon. Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) called on the committee to vote the Bills through. He said that the Bills should pass and when the Minister of Railways goes to the Railway Committee and states that a Bill should pass, the general custom is that the Bill goes through. The Government must assume the whole responsibility whether the Hydro-Electric people get what they want or they do not get what they want. In my judgment they will not be very likely to get what they want. Did you ever know this Government, when it came to a question between the people and the big interests to stand by the people as against the big interests?


Mr. WILCOX:: Always.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend can
call order as much .as he likes, but that will not effect the case, because what I am stating is the absolute fact. If this proposition of the HydroElectric people of Ontario is turned down the people of Ontario will put the blame where it properly belongs and that is on the Government of Canada because they can by one word grant the wishes of the people as presented in the Railway Committee by the unanimous vote of the Legislature of Ontario. The recommendation of the Government of Ontario has the unanimous support of the Opposition.
I quite agree with my hon. friend who has just taken his seat that, because the people of one province ask for a certain thing, even unanimously, we members from different parts of the country are not absolved from exercising our opinions and carrying out our views. I think every hon. member is perfectly right in taking his own course on the matter and voting accordingly. But at the same time, when you find a province like the great province of Ontario asking this House unanimously to take a certain course, it becomes others who are not from that province to think twice before turning down huch a proposition. When the matter of free wheat was up for discussion, I thought that the representatives of those provinces more particularly interested, although I claim the whole Dominion is interested, should have had greater consideration extended to their views by this House. It is the same today. I think that the views of hon. mem-

bers representing the province of Ontario should have special consideration on a question that affects them more particularly th'an it affects the people of any other province.
These charters are fairly old; one of them is 13 years old and the other 16. In justice to Mackenzie and Mann, it must be said that they only owned one of them foi six years, and I am not sure as to how long they have owned the second one. During the first three years that they owned these charters, times were so good, money was plentiful and MacKenzie and Mann could have got all the money they wanted for any legitimate enterprise. They got a good deal of money for the development of enterprises which I would hesitate to put under that name. They could have got all the money they wanted for a proposition of this kind. They did not get it, because they did not want to go on and and my judgment is that Mackenzie and Mann do want to go on with this road to-day but want to hold up the Hydro-Electric and make them pay through the nose. Once this House passes this legislation the people of Ontario, as represented by the Hydro-Electric Commission, will pay, and pay sweetly for these charters. It becomes a question in my judgment, whether or not we should put these charters through. This is not the'first time that I have been called upon to vote against a renewal of charters, not so much against the Canadian Northern as against the Canadian Pacific. In my judgment, when any road allows a charter to hang fire and will only build a few miles just to keep somebody else from building for 13 and 16 years, it would be nothing out of our way if we said to the Canadian Northern: "The 'iLord knows you have charters enough and mileage enough to deal with, more than you have money to handle properly, and if you have any money to spend, put it in the lines that you have in other parts of the country." My hon. friend who preceded me talked about the great Canadian Northern railway from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the magnificent trains they were running. If we had happened to be on one of those through trains in the last couple of months, he would have been tied up in the snow for a month or more because in my own constituency, through which the road runs for some hundreds of miles, they were tied up at one time for 25 days.


John Hampden Burnham: That's an awful country.

M;r. TURRIFF: A bad country for a rusted railway to operate in, but a good country for a good railway. I admit that many parts of the Canadian Northern system are all right. They have a magnificent franchise in the Prairie Provinces, for instance, carrying a large proportion of the grain produced there; but other parts of the system, to give proper accommodation, should have had spent on them double the amount that has been expended.
There has been a great deal of discussion this afternoon of the Government's policy with regard to these radial lines. I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Railways or the Secretary of State, or whoever is leading the Government, whether it is the intention of the Government to give the radial lines a subsidy of $3,200 a mile, or any other subsidy. Perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce could shed a little light on this point.


George Eulas Foster: Is it light that my hon. friend is after? When my hon. friend appeals for light, it is a Christian act to give him all the light we possibly can. With regard to the policy of the Government, I have heard the discussion as it has gone along, and I have not felt that it is particularly germane to that discussion what policy the Government should pursue with regard to these radial lines. I can ease my hon. friend's mind in one respect, however. I do not think any pledge has been given as to what amount shall be granted to these lines, or that it has been decided one way or the other whether aid shall be grafted.


John Gillanders Turriff: It was well for me that it was not light I was after. If I had been asking for darkness I would have a better chance of getting it from the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I had but a faint hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce might, in a moment of weakness, give me a little light. However, if we can get no information from this Government on that point, Sir Adam Beck plainly stated that he had an understanding, if not a promise, that assistance would be given to these radial railways. The Hydro-Electric has cut the price of power and light in two for the people of Ontario, lust as did the city of Winnipeg whan it went into the light and power business a few years ago. Previous to that, Mackenzie and Mann charged in Winnipeg 10 cents per kilowatt hour for lighting, heating and
t

cooking. The city of Winnipeg put in theii own plant, and are now not only paying their way, but are charging only 3 cents per kilowatt hour for light, and 1 cent per kilowatt hour for heat and cooking. The Hydro-Electric in Ontario is giving cheap power to the farmers, and making conditions on the farm much better, the farmers now being able to use cheap power instead of expensive labour. And in what better way can we get cheap power to the farms than by a system of hydro-radials, the one transmission line serving both to run the radials and supply the power to the farmers? The- hydro can do this at half the price that Mackenzie and Mann would charge. The people of Ontario will get cheaper transportation on the radials than on the big railway companies. But even if the charges are as high, what profit the hydro makes will all go back into the system, with a consequent reduction in rates, and an extension of the system. Why should we hesitate to decide between the two? Did anybody ever know Mackenzie and Mann to build a line of railway anywhere in this country between the Atlantic and Pacific, without getting money from the people of Canada in subsidies and guarantees, but chiefly in gifts? They have had large guarantees from the three Prairie Provinces. The road across the prairies was very easily built, and I have no doubt it will always be able to earn interest on the money it cost, because the traffic there is considerable. But look at the position British Columbia is in to-day. Chiefly through the manipulations of the Canadian Northern, British Columbia is practically bankrupt to-day; it has guaranteed $80,000,000 of bonds, chiefly for Mackenzie and Mann, and not one mile of the roads guaranteed is able to earn operating expenses, let alone interest on the money, nor will it for many years to come. Would hon. gentlemen give to such a road as that preference over the road that the people of Ontario want? It does not seem to me a reasonable proposition. Giving the Hydro the preference would not interfere with Mackenzie and Mann to any great extent; they have a wide enough area to operate in outside of the portion of Ontario that is asking for these radials. Why not decide that the people of Ontario shall have what they want, and let Mackenzie and Mann devote their time *and attention to what they have already got. That is my view of this question, and that is how I am going to vote.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
The 'Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Gillanders Turriff: 

war continues for another year, it will be necessary for us to vote an additional $500,000,000, and even then we shall not be paying anything like our share of the war, because, when the war is over and an adjustment is made with Great Britain, we shall have to pay all the expenditure made on the other side of the water in connection with Canada's share in the war. As pre; sent conditions are different from what they were two or five or ten years ago, it is the duty of this Parliament or of this Government to put a stop once and for all to this duplication of railroads. Why allow a railroad to build if it is going to parallel another line? Why should we pick out Mackenzie and Mann and favour them to the disadvantage of the people of Ontario as represented by the Hydro-Electric Commission?
The other day the argument was advanced in the Railway Committee that in a matter of a year or two the Dominion of Canada would have to take over the Canadian Northern railway. There is absolutely no question about that. The Canadian Northern railway is to-day a bankrupt concern, and if we have to take it over in a year or two, the fewer miles of railroad we have then, the richer Canada will be, because every additional mile of railroad that we have to take over will be, not an additional asset, but an additional liability for the Government. We own 40 per cent of the common stock of the Canadian Northern railway, although I do not suppose it is worth the paper it is written on; but we own 100 per cent of the liabilities, because we have gone so far 'in bonuses and cash and land subsidies, and guarantees by the Government of Canada and guarantees by the Provincial Governments, that when that project has to be taken over under the agreement made two years ago when $45,000,000 was guaranteed to Mackenzie and Mann, we shall have to take over and shoulder all its liabilities, and every additional branch that comes in is an additional liability and not an additional asset, because Mackenzie and Mann, when they made the bargain, were too much for our astute Solicitor General, and they took care that all their properties that were good money producers were not put into the pot, but the lines of which they were not so sure were put in. The people of Ontario are ready, and willing, to take hold of those hydro-radial lines, which will give them more and better railway service, and this committee proposes to stand in the way and prevent them doing it. I want to ask the

Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who is apparently leading the House, what the policy of the Government is in connection with this road?


Mr. HAZEN:: I think the hon. gentleman had better go on with his speech. Later on, perhaps, some announcement will be made.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is pretty hard to get any information out of the Government. My hon. friend will not say what the policy of the Government is. As my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Railways has just come in, I would ask him what the policy of the Government is in connection with this railway?


Mr. REID:: I will speak after a while, and I will answer that question.


John Gillanders Turriff: We have accomplished
something at all events. If I understood the hon. gentleman aright, he is going to announce the policy of the Government. However, to announce that policy he has only to repeat here what he said in the Railway Committee, and I think he should state it here. I can remember when, a few years ago, the hon. gentleman sat on this side, and would make the rafters ring with demands for a statement of the policy of the Government on all such matters as this. And now that he is On the Government benches, I am sure that he will be as good as his word of that time, and will tell us exactly what the policy of )the Government is on this question. In the Railway Committee the other day, he said that those who proposed to build railways had to come before the Minister of Railways and Canals for approval of their plans, and that whatever he did the Government would be behind him. So that he practically assumed the full responsibility of the Government in passing or throwing out this Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member was at the committee the other day. He will remember that I stated that this was a private Bill, and that it was entirely for the committee to decide what should be done. But I said also, that according to the Railway Act, before any action could be taken on any Bill passed by this Parliament, the plans had to be submitted to the Minister of Railways and Canals for his approval, and had to be submitted also to the Board of Railway Commissioners. And, of course, the Government assumes responsibility for the action of the Minister of Railways and Canals.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is exactly what I
was saying-that the Government is absolutely responsible for the passing of this Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not say that.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. member knows as well as any member of 'this House that the Government is constitutionally responsible for all the legislation that passes in this House, and that in this respect there is no distinction between a private Bill and a Government Bill. Would the Government allow a private Bill to pass of which they did not approve? If this Bill is approve^ by this Parliament it will be through the force and command of this Government. As I have said, if the people of Ontario are turned down it will be by the Government, and the people will know who turned them down. I was glad to hear the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid,) say that the Government is responsible, because the plans must be approved by the Minister of Railways and Canals before the road can be built, and in that way the Government can stop it if they want to. But if the minister approves the plans and the road goes on it will be because it has the consent of the Government behind it. Since the House rose at six o'clock the following telegram has been received from Hon. Mr. Hearst, Premier of Ontario. It is addressed, to my hon. friend from West Peterborough:
Toronto, Ont., 3rd April, 1916.
J. H. Burnham, M.P.,
House of Commons.
Cannot understand your message.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: That is extraordinary.


John Gillanders Turriff: Do not applaud too much until you have heard the rest of it.
This Government cannot emphasize more strongly than it has done already its opposition to the extension of the Canadian Northern railway charters. Not only was our Ottawa agent authorized to oppose the Bills, but a representative was also sent from the Attorney General's Department to state the Government's opposition. And further than this, a resolution moved by the Attorney General and passed unanimously by the legislature was forwarded protesting against these renewals.
W. H. Hearst.


William Pugsley: Should not the message of the hon. gentleman which called forth this telegram be given, that we may understand the correspondence?
155i


John Hampden Burnham: I simply wished that the Prime Minister of Ontario should restate definitely his position, in order to have something of the latest moment to go' upon. So I wired him, asking if the Government of Ontario opposed the extension of the Canadian Northern railway charter now before this House. His reply has been read- he cannot understand my asking, and he says, of course, that the Ontario Government oppose these Bills.


John Gillanders Turriff: That makes it perfectly clear, if it was not perfectly clear before, that the people of Ontario are opposed to the passage of these Bills; they do not want these charters renewed. And there is no particular hardship in not renewing them. This railway company has any amount of scope for its activities in other parts of the country. At this moment, on the Goose Lake line in the West, there are hundreds of thousands of bushels of wheat lying on the open prairie, uncovered, subject to the snow and the rain, and hundreds of thousands of bushels of this grain have rotted and will become a total loss. Why? Simply because this road could not take that wheat out as soon as it was threshed last fall-could not handle it, and have not handled it. There is scope for good work for them there. Nobody else wants to put in money there. But here, where the money is ready in other hands, and the people want these roads developed, the company ask us to pass this legislation over the heads of the people of Ontario. To my mind, it is not a proper policy for this House to carry on. I do not know that I need say any more. '


Mr. HENDERSON:: Hear, hear.


John Gillanders Turriff: There are some members of this House, so confirmed in their views, that nothing whatever can affect them, and my hon. friend who says " hear, hear," I think, is one of these; he is a fine member and has as good a right to his views as I have to mine; but my view is that this House will make a mistake if it turns down the people in favour of the corporation. But if we do so, it will be the Government that does it, and the Government must take the full responsibility for whatever action is taken by this House in connection with these Bills.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland):: Through force of accident I have been unable to attend any of the meetings of the Railway Committee in which this Bill was discussed. As this Bill affects lines of railway proposed

to be built in the county I have the honour to represent, I feel it my duty to express my views, and, I think, the views which the people of Welland, with great unanimity, hold with regard to these Bills, and particularly with regard to Bill No. 8, which, I understand, is the Bill under discussion at the present time. I am in favour of granting these extensions and of Parliament passing this legislation. The Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company have been operating lines of electric railway in the counties of Welland and Lincoln and have been giving the greatest possible satisfaction in an excellent electric railway service. They have a line of railway extending from the town of Port Dalhousie on lake Ontario through the city of St. Catharines, the towns of Merritton, Thorold, Welland and Humber-stone to Port Colborne on lake Erie, also extending from St. Catharines through Port Weller to the town of Niagara at the mouth of the Niagara river, and from the city of St. Catharines through the town of Thorold to the city of Niagara Falis. This service meets with the entire approval of the public who are being served. They are now asking for an extension of the charter which was granted to them some years ago, and so far as I have been able to gather, the objection to this extension is that it would in some way be detrimental to the interests of the Hydro-Electric Commission or to the Government and the people of Ontario in the construction of radial lines of railway. I would not be a party to the granting of any charters which would be detrimental to the construction of radial railways by the Government of the province of Ontario or by the Hydro-Electric Commission. If I thought that the extension of this charter would be detrimental to the interests of the Hydro-Electric Commission in the construction of its lines of railway, I would take a different course, but I cannot bring, myself to believe that the construction of the lines mentioned in this Bill will have such a detrimental effect. I am inclined to think that a large part of the opposition to this Bill has arisen from the fact that hon. gentlemen are not fully acquainted with local conditions. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) said in his closing remarks that we should not grant power to the Canadian Northern against the wishes of the people who are particularly to be be served. On the other hand, if the people who live in the locality are in favour of granting the concession to the Canadian Northern, I 
assume that my hon. friend would agree that we should carry out their behest. The Municipal Councils of the city of St. Catharines, the city of Niagara Falls, the town of Thorold, and the town of Welland have, with almost complete unanimity, passed resolutions in favour of this Bill. The members of the Municipal Council of the town of Welland, where I reside, with one exception, voted in favour of the proposals embodied, in this Bill. The Municipal Council of the city of St. Catharines was unanimous in favouring these proposals, as also, I believe, was the Municipal Council of the city of Niagara Falls. All the urban municipalities, through their councils, have expressed their approval, and I believe that those councils of rural municipalities which have expressed any opinion have expressed themselves as being in favour of this Bill. What is it that is asked for? The company seeks to extend its line of railway from Port Colborne to Fort Erie, and from Fort Erie to Niagara Falls, and from Niagara Falls to the town of Niagara.


William Humphrey Bennett: They dropped the line from Port Colborne to Fort Erie.


John Dowsley Reid: The Hydro-Electric Commission said that if the company would drop that part from Port Colborne to Fort Erie they would be satisfied to ajlow the Bill to pass. After that they objected.


William Pugsley: It does not seem to be dropped in the copy of the Bill that I have, which is reprinted as amended and reported by the Railway Committee.


Mr. CHARLTON:: The company offered to drop that, but the Hydro-Electric refused. Then the company put the Bill through without making that concession, and it is in the reprint; nothing has been dropped.


William Manley German: I am pleased to know that it has not been dropped; I hope that it will remain in the Bill until the Bill is finally passed and receives the approval of His Royal Highness the Governor General, because that is a portion of railway which the people in that locality are anxious to have constructed and constructed speedily. The construction of the line from the town of Welland to the city of Brantford, so far as its interference with hydro-radials is concerned, might assume a different complexion, but outside of that the construction of any of the lines mentioned in this Bill would in no way interfere with the
/

construction of radial lines by the HydroElectric Commission. No general scheme for the construction of radial railways through that section of the province of Ontario has been settled on, and it will take some years to formulate and develop a scheme for the construction of such railways. The people in the locality want these lines of railway built at once, and this company pledge themselves to build them at-once. The whole coastline of the lake from Port Colborne to Fort Erie, which is a thickly settled portion of the country, is being built up with summer residences, and the people want electric railway accommodation. * The only railway accommodation which they have at the present time, or have had, is the Grahd Trunk railway, which is, of course, as good a service as a steam railway-a freight railway, practically-could give them. They give a fairly good service, but not what the people require. They want an electric service, and they want it speedily. If a hydro-electric railway is constructed through that Niagara district from Hamilton east, in the very nature of things it will necessarily come to the town of Welland, south of St. Catharines, the largest town in the district, which is getting to be a very considerable manufacturing centre. Such a line of railway would come to the town of Welland, and from there it would branch to Niagara Falls, and probably go to Fort Erie; but it would not go to the village of Port Colborne from Welland, because it wuld then be in direct competition with the line of railway of this present company. It would go to Fort Erie, passing through the centre of the district, which is a wealthy farming section, and it would accommodate the villages through that section, so there would then be no competition between the two lines. There is this further with regard to the hydro-electrics through that section or through other parts of Ontario: the Hydro-Electric Commission have now utilized all the electric current which they have a right to procure under their agreement with the Ontario Power Company. They have an agreement with the Ontario Power Company of Niagara Falls for a large amount of electric power at a fixed low price. They have utilized to the full limit all of that power, and if they had railways built at this moment they could not operate them owing to the lack of electrical current.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: They have a policy for developing electric power at Chippewa.


William Manley German: Sir Adam Beck has suggested the development of electrical power at Chippewa. His proposition is to start at the mouth of the Welland river at the village of Chippewa, two miles above Niagara Falls, and construct a raceway thence, parallel with the Niagara river, to Queenston Heights, a distance of 10 or 12 miles. This would be virtually a canal from the mouth of the Welland river to Queenston Heights, and he proposes to there develop the electrical power. It is a gigantic scheme. Enormous electrical power could be developed by such a scheme, and possibly some time in the distant future it may be done. It could not be carried out excepting with the active co-operation of the Ontario Government. It will take years to construct. I venture . to say that no man conversant with the situation will say that that scheme can be carried out, or will be carried out, and electrical power developed under it within from 7 to 10 years. It will cost from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000, and probably more, perhaps $50,000,000. It will be an enormously expensive undertaking and will take long years in construction. To hold up the construction of electric railways through that district, depending on the possible chance of the Ontario Government ever constructing this hydro-electric development, would be an outrage on the people of that locality. No hydro-electrics can be operated or will be operated in that Niagara district by the Hydro-Electric .Commission until they have formulated and carried out a scheme of electrical power development, either on the lines already suggested by Sir Adam Beck or on some other lines, that will give them sufficient power to operate those railways. The people of that locality are anxious that these lines shall be built and built at once. The project has met with the approval of the people there. I have yet to learn that any municipal council of that district ha? disapproved of the passing of this Bill. Resolutions have been passed stating that the Bill should not d>e passed if its passing would interfere with the construction of the hydro-radial lines; but I contend, and I think that every hon. gentleman must see, that the construction of these lines cannot possibly interfere in any way with the construction of hydro(-eledtric radial lines. This ie the wealthiest section of the province of Ontario. It has become an enormous manufacturing centre, and its

manufacturing importance will increase as years go toy. Is the Hydro-Electric Commission to have an absolute monopoly of the whole district? Is it to build lines over that whole district to the absolute exclusion of their construction by companies which are already operating there? If this was an absolutely new company, with no financial interests there, there might be some argument against the granting of the charter. But here is a company which has been operating electric lines there for many years, which has given and is giving entire satisfaction to the people. Then I say they should be allowed to construct these lines, in view of the probability that if they are not allowed to construct them there can be no construction for six or seven or ten years, by reason of the fact that even if they are constructed the Hydro-Electric Commission will have no current to operate them. For these reasons I trust that this committee will report this Bill, and that it will receive the approval of Parliament.


Mr. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto) :: Mr. Chairman, it is with a great
"deal of diffidence that I rise to offer a few observations on this much-discussed subject; but as the matter is one of principle, I feel constrained to trespass on the patience of the House in reference to it. There is no doubt that the people of Canada are enor-* mously interested in the success of the Canadian Northern railway. There is no doubt that the' people of Canada, and particularly of Ontario, are vitally interested in this question of electrical development and of the extension of hydro-electric railways. The province of Ontario, through its legislature, has asked this House not to pass this legislation, and has also sent a representative to the Railway Committee to oppose it. So it seems reasonable for a moment to consider on what ground the province takes this position of hostility. The ownership of the stock of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company is quite immaterial in the discussion of this Bill, because the stock might as well be owned by John Smith or William Jones or any one else. The ownership has nothing to do with it. We have before us a Bill of the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company. What does it ask? It asks authority to build a line from Port Colborne to Fort Erie, and Fort Erie to the city of Niagara Falls; from the city of Niagara Falls to the town of Niagara; from the town of Welland to the city of Brantford; an extension of the

line of the St. Catharines and Niagara Central Railway Company to a point on the Niagara river at Fort Erie.
All of this is of a distinctly local nature. The question naturally arises: what on earth is a railway of a purely local character doing here with the Dominion Parliament, and why is it that we are here legislating in reference to a matter of that kind? It certainly was never intended by the British North America Act, as far as I can understand it, that the legislature of the Dominion should be bothered with these local matters. It was always intended that street railways should be dealt with by cities; that municipalities should deal with their local matters, counties with theirs, and provinces with theirs. Perhaps for a moment it would do no harm to go back to first principles, and call the attention of the committee to section 92 of the British North America Act, which gives exclusive powers to Provincial Legislatures on certain subjects. The exclusive powers of the Provincial Legislatures in relation to railways come under subsection 10:
Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
Where they are within the province they are local works and undertakings, and the province has exclusive jurisdiction over them unless the Dominion under subsection (b) declares the particular local works to be for the general advantage of Canada. When this charter was passed there was strenuous opposition to it on the ground of provincial rights. Those of us who opposed it at that time, believed in provincial rights, and said that the Legislature of Ontario should have had the right to incorporate and deal with this railway. Those of us who opposed it at that time believing in provincial rights and believing that the Legislature of Ontario should have the right to incorporate this company and deal with this railway, resisted this legislation. But the Parliament of Canada, for reasons which I have never been able to understand, except that there was a wonderful lobby put up, declared it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. It was not a transcontinental railway in any sense nor did it connect with any transcontinental railway. There was absolutely no more reason for it than that the promoters of the Bill did not want to go to the Ontario Legislature, believing as they did that in face of its elec-

trical railway legislation they could do better in Ottawa where they could get members from other parts of Canada to vote for it much, more easily than they could get it through the Ontario Legislature. It was under such circumstances that this charter came into existence. The position of the matter to-day is that unless the Dominion Parliament reaffirm that this is a work for the general advantage of Canada and gives new life to this particular charter, it is dead and gone.
The suggestion has been made that there are vested rights to be considered. When a railway is given a license to build within a definite time and does not exercise that license there is no such thing as a vested right. There is an absolute license to build, but if the license is not exercised it does not become a vested right. If it is exercised, of course, there is a vested right. Our statutes are carefully drawn The statute says that in so far as this railway is constructed within the powers granted by the charter it shall be valid, and that as regards any portion not constructed that shall be null and void and there shall be no further power. We are told that there are innocent bondholders. Those who try to raise money for the construction of railways will have to go a long way to find an innocent bondholder who does not look over the Act and have it examined by his counsel, and who does not know that if the company do not have enough money to build the whole line he will have very poor security for his money, and that if he loans money under such circumstances he takes a risk. That being so, there is no vested right, there is no innocent bondholder who is affected, and the question comes down to what should be done in the public interest. Since the inception of this railway, and since this charter has practically lapsed, there has arisen in Ontario a desire on the part of the people of that province to have railways owned and operated by the province or by the Hydro-Electric Commission. We all have to bow to these changes in public sentiment and if this charter had been before the Legislature where it belongs, that Legislature would not have come down here with telegrams and deputations asking us to hold our hands, but would be attending to its own business in dealing with this legislation. This legislation may be here by an accident of fortune but surely as members of this House there is an obligation resting upon us to treat the province of Ontario, or anv other province, with the
consideration it deserves. If we are satisfied that this charter has to do with a local work, a local undertaking within the province of Ontario, if we find that it is something that should not be dealt with by this Parliament, 'the obligation rests upon us, Hot to renew this charter but to leave this railway where it belongs.
I have nothing to say against the Canadian Northern railway. We are vitally interested in that railway. We must be fair to every railway and to every vested interest. But, this is a purely local matter, and we have the province of Ontario, by a unanimous vote, requesting us to leave it in the position in which it is to-day. Apart from what the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has said, no one has suggested that any municipality outside of St. Catharines has been asking for this legislation. I do not know whether this information is correct or not but assuming that it is, has 'any one else to-day suggested that any other municipality has been asking for this legislation?


William Manley German: The council of Welland has asked for it with absolute unanimity, with only one exception.


Edmund James Bristol: I am speaking so far as my information goes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Three municipalities sent word to the Chairman of the Committee by telegram.


Edmund James Bristol: That may be so, but I have noticed in Hansard an enormous list of municipalities which are objecting to this legislation apart from the provincial authorities, and apart from the HydroElectric Commission. When we are getting objections of that character, I say that the obligation rests upon us to consider fairly and squarely the merits of the situation and to vote, each one of us, in accordance with what we believe to be in the public interest. For myself, I can only say that I have not yet heard anything that makes me believe that a renewal of this charter is essential to the Canadian Northern as [DOT]a transcontinental railway. It appears to me to be a purely local line, and I believe that the Hydro-Electric Commission, if they are going to operate in this district, should have a monopoly and should not have competition. I cannot see for one moment why, if the people have the right to charter railways they should not have a monopoly if they want one, because the granting of these charters is an act of public

grace. It is the public which give these charters, and the public takes them away if they determine they must have a monopoly for 'the carrying on of their affairs. I think that before we consider the renewal of this charter, or before we do anything more in this regard, we should do a little stocktaking in connection with railway construction in this country. We have great national obligations at the present time. I would not propose to refuse absolutely the granting of all extensions, but I do say that before an extension is granted to any line we should have a report from the Railway Commission, or from some competent body, as to what the rights of the parties in respect to the constructions of these particular utilities are, and how the country or the province is affected by a further expenditure in connection with that construction. I say that we should take stock of the situation and see how the country is going to come out in connection with the matter.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to prolong the discussion, but I want to answer a few questions that have been asked during the afternoon and to call attention to an amendment that I have, to offer. I hope the House will accept the amendment, so that it may come up for discussion to-morrow night. An hon. gentleman who spoke this afternoon called attention to the fact that having voted $45,000,000 by way of assistance to1 the Canadian Northern railway we were interfering with the protection of our rights if we refused the extension of this charter. All I can say is that I was one of those who took part in ihat proceeding, and I have nothing to apologize for. I am satisfied that it was the proper thing for us to do under the circumstances, but I believe that the time has come when we should call a halt to the granting of concessions in the -way of guarantees of 'bonds. I merely wish to call attention to the financial position in which the Canadian Northern railway is placed. I feel that I should do this owing to the fact that the statements have been made this afternoon in regard! to Canadian Northern finances. We have been told that they are perfectly able to carry on this undertaking which is going to cost some $13,000,000. I believe that this statement which I shall read should be placed on Hansard	so that	members on

both sides of the House may be made aware of the Condition of the finances of the Canadian Northern Railway Company. I may say that the statement has been compiled at my request by the (Statistical Branch of the Department of Railways and Canals within the last week or ten days, and I can vouch for'its accuracy. It covers the fourteen different companies under the management of the< Canadian (Northern railway, and it says:
The situation for the year ended 30th June, 1914, according to sworn returns to the Department of Railways and Canals, was as follows :
Bonds of the various steapi railways owned and operated by Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann were outstanding to the amount of $255,664,197.
There were, in addition to the foregoing, bonds outstanding on lines under construction to the amount of $40,209,330.
At 4 per cent, which is a normal rate, the interest charges on the operating lines would amount to $10,226,568. The actual payment of taxes wras $371,429. There were other charges, such as rents for leased lines, which amounted to $693,167. These items combined make a total of $11,291,164.
As the net operating revenue was only $7,635,693, it will he seen that there was a deficit for the year of $3,655,471, which had to be met out of borrowings.
The real deficit was undoubtedly larger. Every soundly conducted railway must make large deductions from revenue for additions and betterments. None were made in the foregoing statement.
The Canadian Northern proper had a met credit balance for the year of $184,509. The deficit was created by the subsidiary roads, although the $184,509 to the credit of the Canadian Northern make no allowance for betterments out of revenue. If a proper allowance for that purpose had been made, there would have been a considerable deficit too.
In 1915 the situation, from the standpoint of accounting, was materially changed. Messrs. Mackenzie and Mann were permitted by legislation to make a consolidated report for their various railway interests. This report included all their steam lines, the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Electric line, their express and telegraph interests, their hotels, steamers, and so on. Some of these outside operations, particularly the express business, had always shown considerable profits. All the accounts, good and bad, were brought together under the head of the Canadian Northern railway system.
For this Canadian Northern railway system, the bond liability was placed at $315,921,374! At 4 per cent the interest charges would he $12,636,855, to which should he added taxes $454,227, rents for leased lines $351,460 and other interests $70,604

making a total of $13,513,146 for fixed charges. As the corporate income of the system, or the difference between gross earnings and operating expenses, was but $7,222,692, it will be seen that there was an immediate deficit of $6,290,454 for the year. This shortage, of course, had to be met out of borrowings.
The Canadian Northern railway system is very poorly equipped. For example, it had

last year an average of 346'5 freight cars per 100 miles of line, as against 1,144"0 by the Canadian Pacific. It would require a very large capital expenditure, certainly far in excess of $100,000,000, to bring the physical standard of the Canadian Northern up to the standard of a first-class railway.
The Canadian Northern, then, have less than one-third the number of freight cars the Canadian Pacific railway have, per 100 miles. I am placing these figures on record so that the House may see how important it is to give these Bills our most careful consideration 'before granting an extension of the charters.
It was my privilege to he one of the joint chairmen of the committee that considered the consolidation of the Railway Act two years ago. That committee's work included a careful investigation of the clauses which deal with the lines that are about to be built, and the amendment I propose is a copy, to a very large extent, of the clauses in the Railway Act which have reference to the commencement of work, and the location of the line. I believe that I am voicing the opinion of Sir Adam Beck, and of the Government of Ontario, when I ask the House to accept the following amendment:
That the following clause be added to Bill 8, An Act respecting the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway Company:
The company shall not commence the construction of any of the railways herein mentioned, or any section or portion of any such railway, until the general location of such railway has been approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners as hereinafter provided, nor until the plans, profiles and books of reference of such railway have been sanctioned by and deposited with the board and duly certified copies thereof deposited with the registrars of deeds, in accordance with the provisions of the Railway Act.
The company shall prepare and submit to the board, in duplicate, a map showing the general location of each proposed line of railway, the terminal and the' principal towns and places through which the railway is to pass, giving the names thereof, the railways, navigable streams and tide-waters, if any, to be crossed by the railway, and such as may be within a radius of thirty miles of the proposed railway, and, generally, the physical features of the country through which the railway is to be constructed, and shall give such further or other information as the board may require.
Such map shall be prepared upon a scale not smaller than six miles to the inch, or upon such other appropriate scale as the board may determine, and shall be accompanied by an application in duplicate requesting the board's approval of the general location as shown on the said map.
The board may approve such map and location, or any portion thereof, or may make or require such changes and alterations therein as it deems expedient; but if the board deems that
the construction of such railway upon the proposed location or upon any portion thereof is not in the public interest it shall refuse approval of the whole or of such portion, and in any case where the board deems it in the public interest it may, as to any portion of the proposed railway, make and order, or require the taking of any proceedings, provided for by section 176 of the Railway Act.
Where the board approves the whole or any portion of such map and location such approval shall be signified upon the map and the duplicate thereof accordingly.
The map when so approved and the application shall be filed in the Department of Railways and- Canals and the duplicate thereof with the board.
You will notice that the Board of Railway Commissioners will have absolute control of the whole matter. I am satisfied that similar clauses should be included in every charter that is granted by this Parliament from this time forth, and I am sure that the Board of Railway Commissioners, which is an independent body, will be able to decide definitely what is in the best interest of the country and will investigate matters thoroughly as it will have the power to investigate under these clauses. Therefore, I move:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Do I understand that
the hon. gentleman moves that I report progress on this Bill and ask leave to sit again?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes. This morning I handed to the Clerk of the House a copy of this amendment and it will appear in the Votes and Proceedings to-morrow. It cannot be dealt with until to-morrow or the next day, so that, as this is as far as I can go now, I would ask that the amendment be given due consideration.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: As the matter of the proposed amendment is something entirely separate and apart from, and has no connection with the motion which the hon. gentleman has just moved, under the rules of the House it is necessary for me to put the motion forthwith.
Motion agreed to: yeas, 40; nays, 23.
Progress reported.
Bill No. 24, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western railway company- Mr. Morphy-in Committee.
On section 1-short title:


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I beg to move:
That the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand the matter, the hon. minister wishes to have this amendment discussed and, as he cannot move it to-night, he is asking the Bills to stand over until to-morrow night for further discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 56) respecting certain' patents of Stone, Limited.-Mr. Cockshutt.
Bill (No. 62) respecting a certain patent of Harvey Hubbell, Incorporated.-Mr. Cockshutt.
Bill (No. 63) for the, relief of Mary Phyllis Lasher.-Mr. Nickle.
Bill (No. 64) for the relief of Mabel Mills. -Mr. Douglas.
Bill (No. 69) for the relief of Clarice Smith.-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 70) respecting the Atlin Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GREEN moved concurrence in an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 11, respecting the British America Nickel Corporation, Limited.
John Gillanders Turriff: In what does the Bill as amended differ from the Bill as passed by the House of Commons?


William Pugsley: I think I can explain, because my attention was called to the matter when it came from the Senate. The Bill, as passed, provided that the shareholders might elect certain members of the board of directors to be an executive committee. For some reason the Senate struck out that clause. It seemed to me merely to affect the inner government of the company, but you, Mr. Speaker, thought it should be referred to the committee, and this was done with the general concurrence of the House.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would call attention to the fact that while the Bill provides that a majority of the company's directors shall be British subjects, as is customary, it goes on to state, in section 3:
The shareholders of the company may by a resolution passed by a vote of those present, or represented by proxy and holding not less than two-thirds of the issued capital stock represented, at a general meeting called for that purpose, authorize the directors to delegate any

of their powers to an executive committee consisting of not less than three to be elected by the directors from among their number.
So that while this American company conforms to a rule that the majority of the directors must be British subjects, they provide that these directors may appoint an executive committee and delegate to them any or all of the powers of the directors.


Robert Laird Borden: Is that the
clause that was struck out?


William Pugsley: Yes, the Senate evidently took the view of my hon. friend and struck it out.


John Gillanders Turriff: I am reading now from the Senate Bill.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Clause 3 was struck out by the Senate.
Motion agreed do, and amendment concurred in.
On motion of Mr. Macdonald, the amendment made by the (Senate to Bill No. 22, to incorporate the Edmonton and Southwestern Railway Company-Mr. Douglas- was concurred in.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Charles William Wilson.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 73, for the relief of Aimee Rita Elliott.-Mr. Douglas.

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

Mr. BUCHANAN:: 
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	It was represented to the department that the location of the post office was inconvenient, and that it should be removed

to a more convenient one, which would also shorten the mail route.
2.	Mr. Nelson Spencer, M.P.P., and the mail contractor, who stated that the removal of the office was advisable and would benefit all concerned, as the Roseberg post office was in a very awkward place, hard to get to from both directions. He also estimated that the mail route would foe shortened two miles each way, or four miles on the round trip.
3.	Yes.
4.	The department has no record^ of any letter being sent.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Yes. The revenue of this office is 331.00.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	How many Assistant Inspectors ot Weights and Measures were there on the 1st October, 1911?
2.	How many were there on the 22nd March, 1916?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1. 68.
2.	113. The increase is due to increased demand for inspection accompanying growth of business; to increase of capacity of scales which require more labour for our inspectors, to large increase in elevator inspections, and also to creation of a new division in the West.


HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIALS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What was the total amount paid to the employees and officials of the House of Commons, permanent, sessional and temporary, including stenographers, typists, servants, charwomen, etc., during the month of December, 1911?
2.	What was the total amount paid to the
employees and officials of the House of Commons, permanent, sessional and temporary, including stenographers, typists, servants, charwomen, etc., during the month of February, 1916?	-


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	333,846.78.
2.	337,011.35. The difference is made up by the statutory increases in salaries, and payment of the accounts of the office of the clerk of the Crown in Chancery, which has been transferred to the House of Commons since April, 1915.


PROHIBITION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
Mr. MARCIL:: Who asked for the legislation introduced by the Minister of Justice, intituled: "An Act in
aid of provincial legislation prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Legislation along these lines was suggested by the Dominion Alliance, the Baptist Alliance of Prince Edward Island, and the League of the Cross, of Nova Scotia.


HERRING INDUSTRY.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: What was the total expenditure by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in connection with experiments relating to the herring industry, conducted some years ago under the direction of Mr. J. J. Cowie?


John Douglas Hazen: 1903-04.. ..	$ 5,192	221904-05.. ..	10,330	791905-06.. ..	
15,548	031906-07.. ..	
8,178	791907-08.. ..	11,642	21$50,892	04Also cost of	Drifter	No. 33..	
16,546	67Total	$67,438	71


QUEBEC AND SAGUENAY RAILWAY.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has an application been made to the Government with a view to the guaranteeing the bonds of the Quebec and Saguenay Railway Company?
2.	If so, what decision has been arrived at?


Robert Laird Borden: Any announcement with regard to tlfoe matter will be
- made when necessary, in due course.


*Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has an application been made to the Government with a view to its acquiring as part of the Dominion Government railway system the Quebec and Saguenay railway?
2.	If so, what decision has been arrived at?


Robert Laird Borden: Any announcement with regard to the matter will be made when necessary, in due course.


CONFERENCE OF THE ALLIES AT PARIS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Was Canada invited to send a representative to the Conference of the Allies, held in Paris this week, at which are said to have been present, representatives of France, Great Britain, Italy, Russia, Serbia, Portugal, Japan and Belgium?
2.	If so, was the invitation accepted, and who was our representative?
3.	Will Parliament be informed as to any decision reached?
4.	If Canada was not invited, has any representation been made to the Home Government because of her not having been so invited?

5.	Does the Government, in future, intend to exact that as a right it he represented in any conference for joint action in a war in which Canada is participating?	-
Sir ROBERT BORDiEN:	Certain communciatione of a confidential character have passed with regard to this matter, but it is not considered in the public interest to lay them upon the table of the House at the present time.
MONTREAL CUSTOMS [DOT] BUILDING.


Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	Was there a fair wages clause attached to the contract given to the Berlin Interior Hardware Company for the erection of partitions in the new customs house building on McGill street, at Montreal? If not, why not?
2.	If so, are the wages paid by the contractor in conformity with the fair wage schedule for such work?
3.	When was the contract let?
4.	What was the rate of wages per hour to be paid by this company to bricklayers, plasterers, labourers, or any other branches of trades for such work?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The usual clause inserted in such specifications, as follower All mechanics, labourers or other persons who perform labour in the construction of the work hereby contracted for, shall be paid such wagee as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed, and if there is no current rate in such district, then a fair and reasonable rate, and shall not be required to work for longer hours than those fixed by the custom of the trade in the district where the work is carried on, except for the protection oif life or property or in case of other emergencies. In the event of a dispute arising as to what is the current or a fair and reasonable rate of wages, or what are the current hours fixed by the custom of the trade, it shall be determined by the Minister of Labour, whose decision shall be final.
2.	No complaints on file in the department, to the contrary.
3.	February 5, 1916.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


LIEUTENANT A. H. CHUTE.
Mr. PROULX:: 1. Referring to the following press despatch appearing in the Halifax Herald of March 27 :
" London, March 26.-Lieutenant A. H. Chute, of Wolfville, who was for some time at the front, but is temporarily stationed at Shorn-cliffe, has accepted nomination to stand for King's county in the legislative elections shortly to be held, and will contest the county in the Conservative interests. Lieutenant

Chute has been granted leave to proceed to Canada for the campaign."
Has leave of absence been granted to Lieut. A. H. Chute to proceed to Canada in order to run as Conservative candidate for the Legislative Assembly?
2. Is it the intention of the militia authorities to grant leave of absence to any officer or private engaged overseas who wishes to take part as candidates or otherwise in political campaigns for the local legislatures?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	The matter has not been considered.


CENSORS AND DECIPHERERS.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	What are the names of the censors and decipherers employed at Pointe au P6re, county of Rimouski, during the year 1915, what is the salary of each of them, and from what places do they come?
2.	On whose recommendations were they appointed?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	The censorship staff at Father Point
was withdrawn at the closing of navigation in 1915. At the time of withdrawal, the staff consisted of the following:	Censor,
Major A. E. Clint, Quebec, $9 per day^ assistant censor, F. A. Fages, Montreal, $7 per day; decoding clerks, H. H. Cooper, Quebec, $3.50 per day; C. Montminy, Quebec, $3.50 per day.
In addition, the following were employed during the season: Censor, Lt<Colonel L. N. Laurin, Quebec, resigned June 21, $9 per day; assistant censor, M. Wolff, Quebec, transferred June 10, $7 per day; decoding clerks, R. C. Delery, Quebec, resigned June 7, $3.50 per day; W. Amyot, Quebec, transferred June 16, $3.50 per day; P. Lamothe, Montreal, transferred June 16, $3.50 per day.
2.	The staff was selected by the officer commanding 5th Division.


JOHN WESLEY ALLISON.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What rank does John Wesley Allison, formerly of Morrisburg, Ontario, and: now of parts unknown, hold in the Canadian Militia?
2.	Is he a Colonel or a Lieutenant-Colonel?
3.	When was he appointed to the rank he now holds?
4.	Is he attached to any corps or unit for overseas service ?
5.	If not, to what service has he been assigned?
6.	When was he first attached to the Militia as a Commissioned Officer?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Honorary colonel.
2.	Honorary colonel.
3.	8th April, 1913; general order 52, 1913.
4.	No.

5.	Appointed as member Rembunt Committee; G.O. 52, 1913.
6.	Answered by No. 3.


MAJOR FILLIMORE.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	How much money has been paid to Major Fillimore, recruiting officer for the county of Cumberland, for his services and expenses since the beginning of the war?
2.	Is there any amount due him? If so, how much?
3.	How long has the said Major Fillimore been in the service of the Department of Militia?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	$1,310.04.
2.	Not to the knowledge of, the department.
3.	Since August 10, 1914; he has been employed for 311 days.


RIVIERE DU LOUP DREDGING.
Mr. BELLEMARE:: 1 What amount of money has been spent for the dredging of Riviere du Loup, en haut, from 1900 to 1911?
2. Who was superintendent of that dredging?


Mr. ROGERS:: Year.	Amount.	Inspector.1900-01	$ 3,045.50	No inspector, workdone by department dredge.1901-12	Nil.	Nil.1902-03	Nil.	Nil.1903-04	2,523.00	G. A. Tetreault.1904-05	9,862.04	Jos. Beland, A. S.Gaucher.1905-06	15,771.34	J. P. Beland.1906-07	15,778.25	J. P. Beland and A.Pichette.1907-08	12,679.17	J. P. Beland.1908-09	30,130.20	Jos. Beland and A.H. Davis.1909-10	6,932,09	J. A. Mineau.1910-11	16,797.50	Jos. E. Gaudry.1911-12	20,968.27	Geo. A. Lamironde.Total	$134,487.36.


TEMISCOUATA MAIL SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. GAUVREAU:
1.	Does the Post Office Department intend to give a post office to St. Dominique du Lac Terhiscouata?
2.	If not, is the Postmaster General aware that at that place, in the centre of Temiscoua-ta, there are said to be 350 people isolated on all sides for several weeks of the year, and that they are interested in having such a mail service as has been asked for by them and by other citizens of that section of Lac Temis-couata?
Mr. CASGRAIN:: The department is willing to open a post office at St. Dominique du Lac, whenever a reasonable offer is forthcoming for its mail service. Tenders were invited for a daily service, six trips a week, between Notre Dame du Lac and proposed St. Dominique du Lac, distance two miles, and two tenders were received, viz., from Desire St. Pierre (pere) at $400, and from Le Syndicat du Lac T6miseouata, Limite, at $3,000, a year.
The department considers the tenders too high and out of proportion with the work performed and the revenue of the proposed post office; the department however is considering the best terms of giving the population at St. Dominique du Lac the best possible service.
Mr. C. C. JAMES.


Mr. WALLACE:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to appoint C. C. James Deputy Minister of Agriculture.
2.	If so, what qualifications has he for such position?
3.	What salary will he receive?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Buchanan.-For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents relating to the dismissal or resignation of Dr. W. T. Patton, from the service of the Veterinary Inspection Branch of the Department of Agriculture at Coutts, Alberta, and his re-appointment and later dismissal or resignation."
Mr. Boulay.-For a copy of all investigations, letters and correspondence whatsoever, regarding the dismissal of J. B. Desch§nes and Thomas Bernier, employees on the Intercolonial railway at RiviSre du Loup.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams and correspondence of all kinds in any way referring to a subsidy granted to the SS. Amethist, plying between Montreal and Newfoundland ports during the years 1910-11 and 1911-12.
Mr. Paquet.-For a copy of the correspondence between Mr. J. Antime Roy, of ITsle Verts and the Federal Government, on the subject of a farm that might be sold or leased to the Government for the purposes of an experimental farm.
Mr. Proulx.-For a return showing the names of the staff in the office of the High Commissioner for Canada in London; whether any of these officials are natives of Canada; if so, which ones; whether it is true, as alleged, that Canada is the only British Dominion which employs none of its natives in its High Com-missoner's Office.

John Gillanders Turriff: Before you leave questions, Mir. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister to a question that was asked by the member for Strathcona on March 27. The questions and answers were:
Mr. Douglas:
What amount of taxes will each of the following hanks pay under the new taxation Bill, as per their last annual statements: Bank of Montreal, Bank of Commerce, Royal Bank of Canada, and the Bank of Nova Scotia? .
Mr. Reid: It is not possible to state in advance of assessment the amount which will be payable by any person under the provisions of the measure referred to. Under the special war taxation legislation, introduced by the Budget of 1915 and which still continues in force, the banks in question have paid the following sums to date: Bank of Montreal, $154,014.20; Canadian Bank of Commerce, $133,406.97 ; Royal Bank of Canada,$115,600 ; Bank of Nova Scotia, 65,000.
The Prime Minister will observe that the question asked is not answered. The question was not how much the banks had paid in the past, but how much they would pay under the new taxation, as per a statement such a3 their last annual statement. Mr. Douglas would be glad if the Minister of Finance would give an answer to the question in that way.


Robert Laird Borden: I gather from
the reading of the answer that the only answer possible at the present time has been given. I shall, however, direct the attention of the Minister of Finance to my hon. friend's statement.


CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
Mr. BOULAY moved:: For a copy of all questions asked of candidates for examination in the inside civil service since the 1st of May, 1912,


William Pugsley: Is it customary to publish all of the questions asked at these examinations? The examiners might not think it desirable to publish some of them, as their publication would probably give intending candidates a pretty good idea of the nature of the questions to be asked.


Robert Laird Borden: There may be
some force in the suggestion of the hon. member for !St. John, but are not the questions published?


John Douglas Hazen: I think that the questions asked are published in the annual reports of the Civil Service Commission. Certainly those asked at the regular halfyearly examinations are published.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the
motion had better stand.


Herménégilde Boulay: May I inquire why the Government is opposing this motion? Unless those documents are brought down we shall remain in the dark as to whether preposterous questions are put to applicants. If such data are withheld, hon. gentlemen will have no, means of securing the requisite, informations


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The right hon. Prime Minister's request is that the hon. gentleman should allow the question to stand. It will be taken up again at some future date.
Motion stands.


PROHIBITION OR RESTRICTION OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved second reading of Bill No. 66, in aid of provincial legislation for prohibiting or restricting the sale or use of intoxicating liquors.
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. member
for ' Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), is very much interested in this Bill but he had no expectation that the matter was to come up to-day. It was generally understood by hon. members that the discussion in regard to the railway measure would probably absorb the whole day. The minister will realise, I am sure, that on account of my hon. friend's interest and position in regard to the matter, it would be desirable, if possible, to wait until he comes back.


Robert Rogers: He had notice on Friday night.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Possibly we might
make some progress with the Bill without disposing of it completely and the hon. member for Bonaventure will have an opportunity of discussing any question in connection with it that he may desire to discuss. We will leave it in committee. Mr. Speaker, on the introduction of this Bill, I took occasion to give a somewhat full explanation of the provisions, the purpose sought to be attained, and the effect which we hope will result from its enactment. That explanation has been followed by quite a general discussion of the principle of the measure in connection with the resolutions which were originally before the House and, inasmuch as I think one may safely say that the vote upon the

motion of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), as amended, is equivalent to the adoption of the principle of the Bill, I feel I may dispense with any extended observations in moving the second reading which I now do.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
On section 1-person not to send liquor into province knowing or intending that it will be dealt with unlawfully:
John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister be
kind enough to explain why he does not make the sale of the liquor an offence by the party in the province from which it is shipped? The language of this Bill does not get after the merchant or dealer who sells liquor. I would suggest that the merchant who exports liquor into a province where there is a prohibitory law should be liable provided he sells it. The sale itself ought to be an offence as well the the sending it. The word "send" is a peculiar word to use in that sense and I think the act of selling liquor by a wholesale merchant, for example, in the city of Monte real, where it is legal to sell it in that province, to a merchant in Nova Scotia where there is a prohibitory law should be made an offence under the Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In the ordinary course the person who sells, exports the liquor, sends it, or ships it, or in some' manner provides to have it reach his customer in the prohibitory province. Where he does that he will come under the provisions of this Bill. I am not prepared to say offhand that it might not be desirable to modify it in the line suggested by the hon. gentleman. But what strikes one at first glance is that the only person who is not affected by this Bill now will be that man who confines himself to making a pure and simple sale in a non-prohibitory province. He will not be able to sell his goods, he will not be able to convey his goods, or get them into a prohibitory province without violating this law. I do not see the necessity of what is suggested although there might be a combination of circumstances where such a provision might be made to meet a case that the words here do not meet. But at first glance I think we have covered every co-operation for the violation of the law in the province into which liquor is sent by the wording which
we have provided. This is a wording similar to the wording of a provision of the Canada Temperance Act in regard to the sending, shipping, or carrying of liquor into a district which has been brought under the operation of that Act. .


Mr. PROULX:: To include the seller
might work a hardship because a man within a province might buy from the seller and then ship the liquor outside of the province and the seller would, under the law, be selling indirectly.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not suppose that
my hon. friend suggests that we should go farther than to provide that a man should not sell knowing that the purchaser was going to take the liquor into a prohibitory province. I presume that is as far as his suggestion would go. If a man sells liquor to me, say in the province of Quebec, where it is lawful for him to sell it, and I subsequently 'send it into a prohibition province, it would hardly be just to punish the seller whose transaction was entirely in the province where it was entirely lawful. I should be liable, because I was the man that sent it in.


Edmond Proulx: The Bill provides that the penalty shall be not less than $100 for the first offence and not less than $200 for a subsequent offence. Can the magistrate go higher than these amounts? In the Provincial Act the limit is fixed, I think.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is the form in
which the penalty is provided for in the Canada Temperance Act, and I understand that the practical operation of that provision has been that the magistrate has in all cases imposed the minimum penalty.


Edmond Proulx: A magistrate could impose a higher fine than $100 or $200, as the case might be, without going beyond the Act. .


Charles Joseph Doherty: I fancy the wording
might be interpreted to permit him to impose a higher penalty. It might be desirable to fix a maximum as well as a minimum penalty.


Edmond Proulx: The Ontario Act does.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This provision was taken from the Canada Temperance Act, and in reading it over this evening I myself was struck with what the hon. gentleman suggests, namely, that it possibly leaves it open to the magistrate to impose an unlimited fine. I do not suppose the Bill will get


' COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
through the committee stage this evening, and I have it in mind to give consideration to the idea of fixing a maximum penalty.
John Gillanders Turriff: Would the minister consider imposing a penalty of imprisonment for the first offence, without the option of a fine? Under the Temperance Act, which came into force in the province of Saskatchewan on the 1st of last July, the penalty for the first offence, in many cases, is imprisonment. Perhaps that may refer only to servants of the Government in charge of dispensaries.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: No, because a fine was imposed on a man at Moosejaw the other day who was a Government servant.


John Gillanders Turriff: It occurred to me that where considerable money could 'be made by violation of the Act a fine of $100 would not be very much of a deterrent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The magistrate has
power to impose a fine or imprisonment for the first offence. It is not imperative on him to order imprisonment, but he has that option. I think it is wise to give the magistrate some discretion, to be exercised in accordance with the circumstances of a particular case. Mitigating circumstances might exist in one case that did( not exist in another.


John Gillanders Turriff: If the magistrate has authority to impose imprisonment for the first offence, perhaps the section goes far enough.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: I understand the minister intends to provide for a maximum penalty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That suggestion has been made and commends itself to my judgment.


Levi Thomson: In Saskatchewan the penalty is imprisonment in almost every case, it being considered, that imprisonment leads to a stricter observance of the Act. With regard to fines, the minimum is one-half the maximum penalty, but, as I said, imprisonment is imposed in nearly every case, whether the offenders are Government servants or not.


Charles Joseph Doherty: UndieT this Bill a man who persists in committing offences becomes liable simply to imprisonment. After the second offence, the penalty is imprisonment without the option of a fine.

Mr. DUNCAN C. ROSS: Unfortunately 1 was not able to be present when the resolution of my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) was being discussed last Thursday evening, and perhaps I might be allowed to say just a few words on the temperance question generally. This Bill may be of some use, not as a prohibition measure, but as tending to restrict the use of intoxicating beverages. I have no doubt it will do that to some extent, and in so far as it does, it meets with my entire approval. For my part, however, I would much prefer to see the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver placed upon the statute-book, as I believe it would have given effect to the wishes of the majority of the people in this country, and had I been here I should have certainly voted for the resolution of my hon. friend. I can support this Bill only because it is a step in the right direction. I would much rather it had been broader and that prohibition had been made Dominion-wide.


John Hampden Burnham: In view of the many extraordinary statements that have appeared in the newspapers, perhaps the minister would give us the assurance that if the provinces should enact what they appear to want to enact, namely a full measure of prohibition, this Bill gives them eveTy opportunity of so doing. It is a strange thing that many even of the temperance papers, such as the Pioneer o: Toronto, should persistently, and almost wilfully, I think, misrepresent the views of the House in -this matter by asserting that this House, having defeated the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver, has refused to endorse the principle of prohibition; and that as a consequence the provinces cannot enact prohibition, and that if they do, it will simply be landing a number of people high and dry, and the measure turn out to be no prohibition after all.	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The motive that prompted the introduction of this Bill was the belief that by this method we were going to secure to each province in this Dominion of Canada, and, if all the provinces wanted it, to secure to them all, a prohibition law going in each province just as far as the people of that province want to go, and a law which, going that far, we felt convinced would be more susceptible of effective enforcement than any law enacted 'by this Parliament imposing the will

of this Parliament upon each one of the provinces. Any province-and I have no hesitation in giving this as my opinion after the most careful examination I have been able to give to the subject-that want a really effective prohibition within its own limits and that will exercise the power which it enjoys for that purpose, will, under the operation of this measure, find iv self perfectly protected from interference with the operation of that law coming from people in any other province. What we feel is that the basis of the argument advanced in support of the proposal for a general prohibitive law was that the people of' the different provinces had given conclusive evidence that they wanted an effective prohibitory law, and evidence was adduced, in support of that proposition which certainly demonstrated a widespread desire" in all of the provinces, some going a little further than others, for effective prohibitory measures. That demonstration justifies us in assuming that the people in those provinces will see to it that their legislatures give to them just that measure of prohibition which they are prepared for and are ready to have carried out, and to see that it is carried out. If those provinces do that, by this Bill we are furnishing the protection against the bringing about of the violation of the law within the province by people who, being outside of the province that enacts the law, are not amenable to its legislative enactments.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The weak spot in the position which the Minister of Justice assumes in connection with this measure, when he states that it is the desire of the Government to go just as far as the people of the provinces desire, is that he has omitted from his Bill any prohibition of the manufacture of intoxicating liquors within the provinces in which prohibitory legislation has been or is about to be passed, the provinces themselves have no power to prohibit the manufacture of intoxicating liquors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes they have, for use within the province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They have very large powers.


Hugh Guthrie: For use within the province, but they have no power to prohibit the manufacture of intoxicating liquors within the province for export from the province, and it is the opinion of those who -are earnestly supporting prohibitory
laws that, so long as the manufacture is permitted within the provinces a prohibitory liquor law will be more or less of a dead letter. It is within the jurisdiction of this Government to prohibit the manufacture within the provinces, and if the Government desires to go upon this question as far as all the provinces desire, I am satisfied that a large majority of the people of the province of Ontario from which 1 come desire that the manufacture as well as the sale of intoxicating liquor be at the present time prohibited. There is nothing in this Bill which seeks to interfere in the least with the manufacture of intoxicating liquor within the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would you stop its manufacture for export out of the province?


Hugh Guthrie: Had I been in the House I would have supported the resolution of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens) which provided for the prohibition of the manufacture, sale, and importation of intoxicating liquor, and in order to make this Bill satisfactory to the provinces, my hon. friend the minister should make it go as far as I have indicated. From the way the people have voted in some provinces and petitioned in others, there is no doubt as to what the provinces desire.
Mr. R. B. BEiNNETT:	No province has
voted -against the manufacture.


Hugh Guthrie: Because no province has the power to prohibit manufacture for export. If the Government desires to go as far as the provinces wish it to go, then it should go further than it has gone in this Bill and include a section to prohibit altogether the manufacture of intoxicating liquors in provinces which have passed prohibitory liquor laws ot in provinces which adopt the law which this House sees fit to pass in that respect.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think the hon. gentleman lays down too wide a proposition altogether when he says that the provinces have no power to prohibit the manufacture.


Hugh Guthrie: For export.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the question as
to whether the provinces had that power was put to their Lordships of the Privy Council, they answered it in the affirmative, putting this restriction; that it must depend upon the conditions and the circumstances xmder which the manufacture was carried on, so that, if the manufacture within the province would it effect constiaaVISED EDITION

tute a local evil or an impediment in the way of the province's exercising the power which the Privy Council fully recognized to the provinces, of legislating upon the question of the suppression of the use of intoxicating liquor regarded as a local evil, then the legislation would be effective. Is there any province that has prohibited the manufacture to the extent to which the Privy Council points out they are free to do it?


Hugh Guthrie: Not that I am aware of, because, as I say, the impression in the provinces is that they have no power to prohibit the manufacture, but there is no doubt that in this Parliment we have that power. This Government has the power and the question is: Will this Government exercise that power?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The question is this:
we are dealing with liquor as an evil within this country. An appeal has been made to us to protect the people of this country from the evils of liquor, and_we are told that the provinces want, although they have never legislated as far as lies within their power, the kind of law that will prevent the manufacture going on within a building standing in the province. That is the .one evil that the province cannot themselves correct. So far as the manufacturing may lead to one man in the province getting a drink, the province can protect itself against that. Now, all that is asked, even on the contention of the hon. gentleman as I understand it, the thing that there would be need for us to step in to do, would be to see to it that there should not exist an establishment in which liquor was manufactured, even though every drop of that liquor went out of this country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Well,_ what is the evil to be abated within this country, if the liquor (manufactured all goes out of the country? Are we so much interested in preventing the people in countries where the consumption of liquor is not looked upon as it may be looked upon amongst us, from procuring a supply from people in Canada? What injury to the temperance of the people of Canada is going to result from that fact? It does seem to me that it will be time enough for us to undertake to protect the people of other countries when the provinces have done what lies within their power to protect the people within their own limits. I can see no reason why the province is not entitled to protect its own people

from the consequences, if they be evil, inuring to the people of the province from the fact that the manufacture of liquor goes on therein. I fail to see that they have not got the power to protect their own people.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Will the hon. gentleman give the province power to prohibit the manufacture?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
proceeds upon the assumption that this Government can give power to the provinces.


James Joseph Hughes: By amending the British North America Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But this Parliament
cannot amend the British North America Act. We could ask the Imperial authorities to do so. But does it not occur to the hon. gentleman that if the provinces need more power perhaps they (might ask for an amendment extending tlheir power? Why should we ask an extension of power to provinces that they have not chosen to exert to the full extent-to provinces that have never expressed a desire for any extension of their power? Surely, it is a peculiar thing that we should be asked to go to the British Parliament to ask them to give the provinces greater powers than they have.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not see the meaning of this argument. It strikes me that it would be quite within our power to pass legislation enabling the province to prohibit the manufacture of intoxicating liquors if they chose to do so. What we should have to do would be to pass legislation saying that when a province prohibits the manufacture of intoxicating liquors that Act shall be valid. We are taking the first step now, we are prohibiting the sending of liquor into the province in which the import is forbidden. I submit that we can do the same thing so far as the manufacturer is concerned.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Wre are not now creating an offence in one province which will not be an offence in another province. The offence we are creating is one that will be an offence throughout the Dominion.


John Howard Sinclair: I beg pardon-


Charles Joseph Doherty: If the hon. gentleman thinks otherwise, he entirely misapprehends the Bill. Anywhere in Canada, it will be an offence for a man to send liquor

into a province where there is a law against it.


John Howard Sinclair: But not in any province where there is no prohibitory law.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is a condition of the offence, but it is a Dominion-wide law.


John Howard Sinclair: It does not apply to British Columbia.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It applies absolutely
to the province of British Columbia. It will be the same offence for a man in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario or Nova Scotia, to send liquor into a prohibitory province to be used in violation of these laws. Let us not be misunderstood; we are making no law that will be effective in the province as a provincial law, and we give absolutely no powers to any provinces. We lay down what looks to me like the very justifiable proposition, that hereafter it shall be an offence for a man to conspire-if I may use the word-to contribute to the bringing about of the violation of the provincial law, even though he does that conspiracy, or contributing, or initiation of the offence, somewhere outside of the province whose law is violated. We .are constituting an absolutely new offence. The offence does not consist in the violation by anybody of any provincial law-because the man we are hitting is the man who is not bound by the provincial law,-but in a violation of our law. We say that it is an immoral thing, and ought to be prohibited, for a man anywhere within this Dominion deliberately to become a party to a violation, which is to take place within a province, of a law that that province has lawfully made. We give no power to the province, and we are not legislating for a particular province. The bon. gentleman suggests that we should legislate in ratification of the laws of the provinces. But if the view is right that the province cannot prohibit the manufacture, our ratification will not make valid the law that they could not make. Our power comes from the British North America Act, and we have no power of delegation-absolutely none. We can no ' more delegate to the province than the province can delegate to us. If a province should consent that we should legislate about property and civil rights in that province, we should have no more power to pass that legislation than we have now. Hon. gentlemen must understand that it
156J
has been authoritatively-"and I think once [DOT]for all-settled, that neither this Parliament nor any of the legislatures, in the exercise of its legislative functions, is exercising delegated powers. As the Privy Council has said: Provided the subject matter of the legislation comes within the subjects laid down as a proper matter for provincial legislation, the provincial legislature has the plenitude of power of the British Parliament as fully' as the British Parliament could exercise it or could confer it upon anybody else. It is an entire mistake to suppose that this Parliament stands in a position of .superiority to the provincial legislatures and hands out powers to them.


John Howard Sinclair: We do not contend that on this side.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The hon. gentleman
opened by saying that we ought to confer powers upon the legislatures to do these things. The second thing that I do not think it is in our power to do is to submit our legislation upon a subject matter which belongs to us-if it does not belong to us there is no occasion for our dealing with it. Assuming that we alone have the right to prohibit the manufacture, then we must prohibit that manufacture looking at the thing from a Dominion point of view. When we say: we will abdicate our function and say that whenever a legislature prohibits manufacture in a particular province, then it shall be unlawful to manufacture within that province-that is not Dominion legislation. We are no longer legislating for the peace, order and good government of Canada; and we are endeavouring to give some sort of sanction to unconstitutional legislation. We must assume it to be such: it is on the assumption that it is such that it is suggested that we ought to do the legislating. That is not exercising our functions; that is subjecting the exercise of our powers to the will of particular provinces and proceeding to make different laws for different provinces according as the legislatures of those provinces decide, and accepting the decision of the legislatures of these respective provinces upon a matter with which they have no competency to deal.


William Pugsley: Do I understand the
minister to mean that a provincial legislature could prohibit the manufacture of liquor for use within the province?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think that certainly
they could.


William Pugsley: Assuming that the province of Ontario believes in prohibition, under the law which the minister proposes it would be illegal to import even a gallon of cider into the province of Ontario. If the legislature prohibit manufacture for sale within the province, would it not be right for this Parliament in that event to go further and prohibit its manufacture entirely within the province? You see how inconsistent it is to prohibit the importation of a gallon of cider and to allow millions of dollars' worth of whisky to be manufactured right in the prohibition province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When the province
will have legislated that whisky is not to be consumed in the province, then our law will prevent whisky being sent in.


William Pugsley: It will not prevent its being manufactured, though.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think there is a most extraordinary misapprehension about this power to prohibit the manufacture. Their Lordships of the Privy Council, when the question was put to them, premised that they did not mean to be bound by their answers, because the question was put to them in purely academic form. This is just how they dealt with these two questions of manufacture and importation:
Their lordships must further observe that these questions being in their nature academic rather than judicial are better fitted for the consideration of the officers of the Crown than of a court of law. The replies to be given to them will necessarily depend upon the circumstances in which they may arise for decision ; and these circumstances are in this case left to speculation. It must therefore be understood that the answers which follow are not meant to have and cannot have the weight of a judicial determination, except in so far as their lordships may have occasion to refer to the opinions which they have already expressed in discussing the seventh question.
The seventh question was the question as to the validity of section 18 of the Ontario Act, prohibiting sales by retail and restricting sales by wholesale. Here is the answer to question 3:
In the absence of conflicting legislation by the Parliament of Canada their lordships are of opinion that the provincial legislation would have jurisdiction to that effect if it were shown that the manufacture was carried on under such circumstances and conditions as to make its prohibition a merely local matter in the province.
Their lordships dealt with prohibition as being merely a local matter in the province. This principle they recognized both in the provincial prohibition case and in the case

submitted with regard to the law of Manitoba. I am not suggesting that this Parlia-ment_ has not power; if it be considered that the question should be dealt with as a national evil and in the same way in all the provinces, I do not dispute the power of this Parliament to do it. But what their Lordships clearly held was, that while it might be dealt with as a national evil by the Parliament of Canada, looking at it from a Dominion standpoint, and that wherever the Parliament of Canada did deal with the question, they necessarily ousted any legislative competency of the province; in the absence of such legislation by Parliament, the provinces, looking at the suppression of the abuse or use of liquor as the abatement of a local evil, had full power to' legislate for the abatement of that local evil. If the manufacture should be carried on under such conditions as to make its suppression necessary to the abatement of a local evil, which in express terms the legislatures are held to have power to abate, I would have no doubt, so far as one can venture to say that he has no doubt with regard to any question of law, that the manufacture might be prohibited by the province itself. However, it is not, perhaps, necessary for us to go that far at the moment. What we are concerned with is bringing about the protection of Canada from the evils that result from the abuse of intoxicating beverages. Many people think that the use and the abuse are inseparable, and that therefore the only way to protect against the abuse is to do away with the use. But it is to be pointed out that none of our provinces have ever undertaken to legislate against the use of intoxicating liquor. A great many of the difficulties that seemed to exist when these questions were new questions came from the fact that the object struck at in so-called prohibitory legislation was-and has always been-the traffic in liquor. No legislative body has taken upon itself to legislate against the use of liquor.


John Howard Sinclair: If you stop the manufacture and sale you stop the use of liquor.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Some people believe that the supply creates the demand, and some, perhaps the majority, believe that the demand creates the supply. What I should suggest is that if you want to suppress the use perhaps you would get at it more effectively if you not only suppressed the supply but went on and suppressed the very thing you want to suppress. Why has it not been dime directly? I am not sug-

gesting that you should not, if you want to get effective prohibition, prohibit the traffic, but why have the provinces stopped there?


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister suggest that the provinces should enact legislation making it a crime for a man to drink intoxicating liquor?


Charles Joseph Doherty: They cannot make it a crime because they cannot make criminal law; but if, in their judgment, the use of liquor is locally, within their limits, an evil calling for abatement, I have no doubt they can legislate against the use of liquor, and when they do so our law will protect their legislation against the use of liquor. What I wanted to point out is that it is because this legislation in the past has been directed against the liquor traffic that there has been the great confusion as to the relative powers of Parliament and the provinces. When the question was originally put forward, the attack upon provincial legislation was based upon the suggestion that it was an interference with the Dominion's power with regard to the regulation of trade and commerce, and the Privy Council said that it was not a question of regulating trade and commerce but a question of abating an evil, and if one province looks upon the use of liquor as an evil, producing injurious consequences to its population, giving rise to disorder and tumult and making more difficult the enforcement of police regulations and the maintenance of order and peace within the province, that province, without getting into' the field of criminal legislation has power-and the Privy Council has so decided-to legislate to abate the evil. If the legislation had gone direct to the use of liquor you would have wiped out at one stroke all the questions that arose as to whether or not this was regulating trade and commerce. Those questions have disappeared now. I think it is safe for us to say that the decisions of the Privy Council make it clear that prohibitory law is not a matter of regulation of trade and commerce. The power of this Dominion to pass such a law rests, I think, in the last analysis, upon our power to enact criminal law.


William Pugsley: I am in favour of a measure like this. That is to say, the Dominion Parliament should aid the provinces in enforcing prohibition. The difficulty is that it is most discouraging to the temperance people of all the provinces, while they have
prohibition against the import, to have manufacturing carried on on a large scale. Would the minister be willing to embody m this Bill a provision that it shall be unlawful to carry on the manufacture of intoxb eating liquor in any provinces where the use of it is prohibited by the local legislature?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not prepared to say yes to that right off, because if the use of it be prohibited in a province, can it be said to be legislation ancillary to that if we should prohibit the manufacture for use outside of the province?


William Pugsley: The minister admits that it is ancillary to a prohibition of the use of it, or even prohibition of the sale of it, to prevent the import into the province in the smallest quantity. Therefore would it not be equally ancillary to a prohibition of the use of it to prevent its manufacture in that province?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If it be shown that the manufacture in the province leads to use in the province.


William Pugsley: You know it will, always.


Charles Joseph Doherty: But if that be shown, then the province can attend to it itseii.


William Pugsley: Then you would not assist the province by any legislation?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Because it would not need my assistance.


Mr. ROSS:: But suppose there ie some doubt; what would be the harm in putting it beyond the shadow of a doubt?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is the usefulness?


John Howard Sinclair: There could be no doubt in my mind, because a manufacturer would always say that he wae manufacturing for use outside the province and then the manufacture would be legal; he could then dispose of as much as he liked in the province.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Justice knows that the great trouble in enforcing prohibition in a province ie that liquor will be imported for illegal purposes and, in the same way, if in a prohibition province you have the manufacture carried on on a large scale, there will be the illegal use and the illegal sale of it through connivance between persons who will not hesitate to violate the law, and the manufacturers.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Just as in local option districts.


Mr. STEVENS:: If this first section passes I propose to submit two additional clauses to the Bill. While these amendments will not go as far as the hon. gentleman suggests, yet they deal with the same point.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: How far will you go?


Henry Herbert Stevens: My first amendment
reads:
In addition to any other penalties prescribed for a violation of section one of this Act, any person holding: a license to carry on the business or trade of a distiller or brewer issued under the provisions of the Inland Revenue Act who violates the provisions of section one of this Act, or who sells or delivers intoxicating liquor in violation of the law in force in any province, shall also be liable, in any prosecution under this Act, on conviction for a first offence, to the suspension of such license for any period not exceeding three months, and, on conviction for a second offence, to the suspension of his license for any period not exceeding six months, and, on conviction for a third offense, shall forfeit his license and shall thereafter be unable to hold such a license.


William Pugsley: That does not seem to bring it within the section of the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not go as far as my hon. friend suggests, but it does this: Assuming a province passes a prohibitory law and there is a tendency on the part of a manufacturer to sell in that province contrary to the law, then this clause will provide for the cancellation o'f that manufacturer's license absolutely.


William Pugsley: No, pardon me, the whole section is directed against the illegal sending of liquor into another province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, the hon. member's amendment, if adopted, while perhaps it would not go as far as the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John, would bring about this result: that the manufacturer holding a license from the Inland Revenue Department of this Government, who sold within the province in violation of the provincial law would suffer forfeiture of his inland revenue license, and so would be unable to carry on the manufacture.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps I may as well read the other amendment and then it will all be before the committee for discussion. The next clause as proposed will be clause . 3 of the Bill as amended if these are adopted:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence-

I understand that " indictable " will have to be deleted. I will leave that for the Minister of Justice to consider:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable on summary conviction to a penalty not exceeding two hundred dollars, or to imprisonment for six months, or to both fine and imprisonment, who:-
(a)	sends or ships by any public conveyance to any place in which the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited any package containing intoxicating liquor not plainly labelled so as to show the actual contents of such package; or
(b)	sends or ships by any public conveyance any package containing intoxicating liquor-addressed to a fictitious person or addressed otherwise than to the actual consignee of such package; or
(c)	being a common carrier or the servant or agent of a common carrier, knowingly receives for conveyance, carries or makes delivery of any such package; or
(d)	knowingly takes delivery from any common carrier of any such package.
I beg to give notices of these clauses.
Mir. (Pugsley: The minister will agree with me that the amendments suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) are of very great importance and worthy of careful consideration. It is now eleven o'clock and my hon. friend the member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) would like to speak on this subject. I am sure that my hon. friend will agree that copies of these proposed amendments should be struck off so that they will be distributed to members. It will be interesting to have them and, as the hon. gentleman has read them, they will be printed in Hansard.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why could we not pass clause 1?


William Pugsley: I was going to suggest
this to the minister. I have every desire to lend my assistance to making the Bill better if it is possible to improve it. I am a very great believer in having prohibitory legislation passed by the provinces and then have this Parliament render to the provinces by legislation whatever assistance can be rendered in the way of enabling them to better enforce the prohibitory law. If I were to express my opinion on the question at present before the House, it would be that I am wedded to local option, to having the smaller communities in the Dominion decide for themselves whether they will have a prohibitory law or not. I quite agree with what the minister stated that it is desirable 'to have public sentiment behind a prohibitory law. Until you have that to support you it will be impossible to get the sympathy and

support of the local authorities to the extent necessary for the successful enforcement of the law. We had in New Brunswick a great many years ago an experience of a prohibitory law in advance of public opinion. It was passed by a Government which was either led by the late Sir Leonard Tilley or in which he was a prominent member. It was not a success. It only remained in force one year when it was repealed. I have heard Sir Leonard Tilley himself say nothing could have happened to set back the cause of temperance to a greater extent than the failure to successfully carry out that prohibitory law and the fact of the Government being com- [DOT] pelled to" repeal it. In my own province local option, I think, has been fairly successful. It has produced exceedingly good results and temperance is far and away in advance of what it was 25 or 30 years ago. Great progress has been made. Therefore it is that I am in favour of prohibition by the provinces, aided by Dominion legislation, rather than a general Dominion law. In regard to the Bill itself, a source of discouragement in some of the provinces will be to find that the manufacture of liquor is conducted on a very large scale and that no attempt is made to prohibit it. The temperance people will not be able to understand why it is made illegal to import a gallon of cider into a province where prohibition is in force while you allow whisky to be manufactured on the largest possible scale.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Our Bill does not prohibit the bringing in of a gallon of cider if it is not going to be used for an illegal purpose. As the laws of the provinces stand to-day, roughly speaking, they do not prohibit a man having a gallon of cider in the province, but they do prohibit him selling it. Our law will not prohibit a gallon of cider coming in unless it is going to be sold. There is no provincial law to prevent what is manufactured within the province being sold out of the province, so that whisky and cider will be absolutely on the same footing.


William Pugsley: Anybody who has had
experience in prosecuting cases of violation of the liquor laws knows that the liquor will be imported, and has been imported,' ostensibly for private use, but actually for sale and distribution. The difficulty is to prove the real facts so as to enforce the law. The temperance people will be comforted with the fact that where in a province the sale of liquor is prohibited, a gallon of cider could not be imported for sale, and it may be imported ostensibly for private use and yet be disposed of illegally. This Parliament insists on punishing that offence, whereas this .Parliament will enact no statute to rid the province of the evil of manufacturing the strongest kind of intxoi-cating liquors carried on upon a very large scale. That is what will prove disappointing to temperance people. When it is desirable to take steps to put an end to such a condition of affairs we, of course, must leave to the Government to decide. In introducing this Bill my hon. friend the Minister of Justice is beginning just where Parliament began with the Scott Act many years ago. I am afraid that under the Bill in its present form there will have to be gone through the same series of motions in court, the same trials, the same questions, the same appeals, the same proceedings before higher courts that every member of this House as well as every lawyer in the country will remember many years ago when the Canada Temperance Act was first enforced. There is no provision that a conviction by a magistrate shall be final. There is no provision against a writ of certiorari, no provision that there shall not be appeals of all kinds taken. Though you have a provision for the destruction of intoxicating liquors, conviction is not made evidence that the liquor was imported illegally, and in a case of replevin the question must be tried out as to whether the liquor was imported for legal or illegal purposes. Does not the minister think that a conviction, particularly if it should be confirmed, perhaps a conviction without being confirmed, even if the right of appeal were taken away, should be the best evidence that the liquor has been imported illegally and should be subject to forfeiture? Unless that is done, it will have to be tried out as a question entirely separate from the question of the conviction of the individual offender. The minister has also gone to the extent of providing that so far as the taking of criminal proceedings is concerned, the onus oT proving that the liquor was not imported in violation of the law shall be on the defendant, but he has omitted in the Bill any such provision in case the question of the forfeiture of the liquor comes up. Therefore, you might very well have a conviction of the alleged offender by reason of the onus of proof being on him, and by reason of his not being able to satisfy the magistrate, and

you might have a person whose liquor had been forfeited recovering heavy damages against the officers of the law who confiscated the liquor, because in the'case of forfeiture there is no such provision as to the onus of proof. Those are things that perhaps the minister has thought of and does not think desirable to insert in the Bill. If he has not decided adversely in regard to the inclusion of provisions somewhat along the line I have suggested, and which have been found necessary in connection with the enforcement of what is known as the Scott Act, I should like him to give them his consideration.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall certainly welcome any suggestions that will make more assured the effective working of the Bill, but I confess I do not share the apprehensions of the hon. gentleman in so far as the validity of this legislation is concerned. We have been discussing questions that may present some doubt with regard to the extent of powers of manufacturing, but we are not dealing with that at the moment. I have not heard suggested this evening any ground upon which our power to do what we are doing is questioned. I shall certainly welcome any suggestions that would tend to make the working of this Act more effective, and shall of course be prepared to give most careful consideration to any suggestions coming from the hon. gentleman. In so far as the distinction between criminal conviction and what is inserted here, or at all events what was intended to be inserted here, as an additional consequence of the conviction is concerned, possibly it might be an improvement if we had used the words " with respect to which or in regard to which any such conviction has been pronounced," instead of " with respect to which any such offence has been committed." I shall be glad to welcome any assistance that can be given in ensuring that this legislation when enacted shall be effectively enforced. I feel myself that this legislation goes as far as is needed, but the one thing that I am anxious about is^that as far as it does go, it shall be effectively enforced.


John Howard Sinclair: What effect will this
Bill have on the wholesale trade? Will a man still be allowed to have a bonded warehouse in a dry province, under the authority of the Inland Revenue Department?


Charles Joseph Doherty: So long as a province
does not prohibit the possession of liquor
[Mr Pugsley.]
within its limits, I presume it will be possible for a merchant to keep liquor in a bonded warehouse. At all events, this legislation does not affect that question.


John Howard Sinclair: It does not touch the
wholesale trade at all?
Mr. DOHERTY': Provinces can deal with the wholesale trade just as well as with the retail trade. I have taken some pains to look into that question, and have not been able to find any suggestion in any of the judgments that the province's power is less with regard to the wholesale trade than it is with regard to the retail trade.


John Howard Sinclair: It has generally been assumed that the wholesale trade is. under Trade and Commerce and that the provinces have power to deal with, the retail trade only.	.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think there is any subject on which more things have been assumed than on this one. I think the confusion on the subject arose in this way: certain provincial legislation did make a distinction between retail and wholesale trade. The Privy Council just took the words of the section and said: "Yes, the province can pass that section." Now, because the section did make a distinction between wholesale and retail trade, the inference seems to have been drawn that because the province did not choose to legislate about wholesale trade, the Privy Council therefore said it could not; whereas the Privy Council was simply answering the question that was put to it. I have looked into this matter, and speak with a certain degree of confidence. It has been assumed, but I think it is a mistaken assumption, that there is a distinction to be made between wholesale and retail trade in liquor from the point of view of the power of the provinces. When it comes to interprovincial trade, there is something to be said about it, and that is what we are trying to take care of; but the fact that a man in selling in large quantities does not affect the power of the province to deal with the question. I do not think that we need in any way be embarrassed by any questions of distinction as regards the quantity in which people deal in liquor.


John Howard Sinclair: Under the Inland
Revenue law a merchant is entitled to keep a wholesale shop in any province, where he stores large quantities of liquor which he retails to the public. Will this Act in any way affect that right?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. I may say that the Privy Council has determined that the fact that a prohibitive provincial law would interfere with the right that a man had in a license from the . Dominion Government would not affect the validity of the provincial law.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I do not wish to disagree with the minister, but lawyers differ in the reading of laws. In the case referred to, did not the Priviy Council say that whilst the province of Ontario would have full power to deal with a license there could be one class of matter falling within section 91, and another class of the same subject falling within section 92?


Charles Joseph Doherty: What I understood to have been decided was this: that the same thing looked at from different standpoints might, according to the standpoint from which it was looked at, be looked upon as purely a local matter within the province, and therefore susceptible of being dealt with by'the province, or as a matter of general or national concern and as such to be dealt with by legislation of this Parliament.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And the moment it dealt with liquor going out of the province the matter fell within the jurisdiction of this Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think there is any doubt that a province cannot legislate about trade outside of itself. I do not think that a province can legislate with regard to the trade that a man is carrying on outside of the province. If I correctly apprehend the state of the jurisprudence our power to make prohibitory enactments about liquor does not rest at all on our powers with regard to the regulation of trade and commerce. It rests upon our power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, and, as was stated in the original case where the matter was decided, is closely linked up with our power to enact criminal la\y. That is what makes our power of prohibition clear. It has clearly been laid down that it is not a matter of regulation of trade and commerce. It might be if you were making regulations as regards foreign trade or if you were making regulations with regard to interprovincial trade, but I think the wisest thing I could do is not to try to define what is included in the regulation of trade and commerce, because the Privy Council has practically said that each thing it has so far been suggested comes under the regulation of trade and commerce, does not do so, and has left us more or less a speculative field as to what is meant by the regulation of trade and commerce. I think, however, it is safe to say, under the decision of the Privy Council, that our right to deal with the traffic in liquor or the use and abuse of liquor does not depend upon our power to deal with the regulation of trade and commerce, and it is probably the safest thing to say that it is a power that we have under our general power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada.
The power of the provinces to deal with the matter comes, as I understand it4 from their power to deal with all matters of a purely local and private nature within the province. Their lordships have said that a thing that, at the outset or in one set of conditions, may be a purely local matter may come to assume such importance from a Dominion standpoint as to cease to be a purely local matter within the province, although it is always exactly the same thing, and to become a matter of national importance and one calling for action in the interest of the peace, order, and good government of the Dominion. It follows from that that you may have a matter from one point of view within the provincial power and from the other point of view within the Dominion power, and, in effect, this is one of them. There are things that the Privy Council have determined to be susceptible of legislation either by the legislatures looking at it from the provincial point of view, or by the Dominion Parliament looking at it from a national point of view. In such cases they have determined that, where Parliament does legislate, there its legislation is paramount, and the local legislation upon the same subject must give way in the face of existing Dominion legislation. Perhaps the most noteworthy instance is the case where the Canada Temperance Act is brought into force in any district in any province. There it supersedes provincial legislation and the provincial legislation will not be effective. As I understand it, the proposed legislation in Ontario will not affect these counties in Ontario where the Canada Temperance Act is in force, because there the paramount power of Parliament is at work, and ousts from the field the power from a local point of view of the province.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister perhaps has not noticed that the party who drafted this

Bill, although he appears to have attempted to follow the Act that was passed in 1908, has not altogether done so. This matter is nothing new; this Act has been on the Statute Book for a number of years, excepting that it- applied to counties in which the Scott Act had been adopted. We are now attempting to apply it to parts of Canada where some other Act in addtion to the Scott Act has been adopted. This legislation has been on the Statute Book since 1908, and in looking over the Act that was passed in 1908, I am inclined to think that some language that ought to have been inserted in this Bill has been left out, and I would like to draw the attention of the , minister to that, so that perhaps his Bill might be amended. The Act of 1908 was an amendment to the Scott Act. Section 117 says:
From the day on which this part comes into force and takes effect in any county or city, and for so long thereafter as, and while the same continues or is in force therein, no person shall, except as in this part specially provided by himself, his clerk, servant, or agent,-
(a)	expose or keep for sale, within such county or city, any intoxicating liquor; or,
(b)	directly or indirectly on any pretense or upon any device, within any such county or city, sell or barter, or, in consideration of the purchase of any other property, give to any other person any intoxicating liquor; or,
(c)	send, ship, bring or carry or cause to be sent, shipped, brought, or carried to or into any such county or & city, any intoxicating liquor; or,
(d)	deliver to any consignee or other person, or store, warehouse, or keep for delivery, any intoxicating liquor so sent, shipped, brought or carried.
The Bill that we are now considering has these words in the first section:
Any person who by himself, his clerk, servant or agent, shall send, ship, take, bring or carry,
But the words
or cause to be sent, shipped, brought or carried.
are omitted. I think those words are important, because it is so easy to evade this kind of legislation. A merchant in a wholesale district that is shipping into a dry province might cause some other person to send the liquor for him, and in that case he would not be liable at all because he did not do it himself. The purpose of putting that language into the Act was to prevent that. I think that subsection d ought to be added to the Bill:
Deliver to any consignee or other person, or store, warehouse, or keep for delivery, any intoxicating liquor so sent, shipped, brought or carried.

I would suggest to the minister to look into that and see if his Bill would not be improved by the addition of that subsection.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I shall 'be glad to look into the matter and see what is best to be done. At first glance I would' think-qui faoit per alium tacit per se-the man who causes to be sent, shipped, brought or carried, must send or ship the liquor through his clerk, servant or agent at the very least. If I cause a man to carry, then that man is my agent for the purpose of carrying. I am, however, willing to give the matter thought, and if it is possible that adding those words will add any force to the Bill, I shall 'be glad to insert them.


John Howard Sinclair: This question has all been threshed out in the courts.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Subsection d is a
substantive prohibitory law. We are not purporting to make such a law; we are purporting to assure the effectiveness of the provincial laws that may be made. As regards the warehousing and storing, all that will happen in the province into which the liquor has been sent, and once it is in there the province will do the legislating about what quantity of liquor people can store and hold, and so on, under its law. / What we are undertaking to do is to prevent the liquor being sent in for the purpose of violation. A province can take ample care of the violations of its own law that happen within its own limits. This Bill is trying to prevent violations within the limits of a province which are brought about by the action of people outside. The Canadian Temperance Act was making >a substantive prohibitory law prohibiting certain things and that section was inserted to protect those districts that adopted the Canadian Temperance Act from the action of people outside of those districts. That was to protect the temperance district under the Canada Temperance Act from tlhe action, detrimental to the carrying out of that Act within the borders of the district, of peoeple outside the district. Our legislation is to protect the enforcement of the provtineial law within the ''province against interference by the action of outside people. [DOT] We are not making prohibition of a particular thing; the province will do the prohibiting and will attend to the man who warehouses or keeps in store liquor within

the province. With regard to the suggestion that we should have the words "or cause," etc., I will give it consideration. I think it fair to assume that the persons who'drafted the Canada Temperance Act knew that there was a difference between the two things, and I do not mean to say that there was not. If there is a difference, we want to get at the man who, in any shape, is a party to the getting of liquor into a province for the known purpose of its being used to violate the law of the province.
Mr. LEMIiEUX: I would like to speak rather as a layman than as a lawyer upon this matter. I voted for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary [DOT](Mr. Bennett), and for this reason: I am in favour of temperance, but I am against a measure of Dominion-wide prohibition, until it is backed up by public opinion in each of the several provinces. But, while I voted for this general purpose, I wish it to be understood that it is because I respect provincial Tights and public opinion in this matter within the various provinces. But the mo.ment a province has declared itself for prohibition-and I take it, as a resident of this province of Ontario, that this province is overwhelmingly in favour of total prohibition-I stand by the province in that movement. But, if I appose Dominion-wide prohibition, as moved the other day by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), I want it to be perfectly understood that it is my opinion that this Government 'should, by the present legislation, give effect to that provincial prohibition in a satisfactory way. And how can you make your Bill effective, if it does not go further than the present measure? I understand that when a province is declared to be " dry, " not only will the province expect that there will be no license given for the retail trade, but that this Parliament, by its legislation, will prevent the wholesaling of liquor to go on in that province. My bon. friend (Mr. Doherty) shakes his head. But if that is not provided for in your legislation you will have no prohibition in Ontario, and you will not meet public opinion by your legislation. My hon. friend stated that he understood that the province had the right to restrict the wholesale liquor trade as much as the retail. As to that, I believe there is a strong doubt. I am not prepared to cite authorities, and havie not the judgment of the Privy Courieil on this question before
me. But I know that my hon. friend is sincere in that-he has been associated for years with the cause of temperance in his own province. But he knows perfectly well that if you do not prohibit the wholesale as well as the retail trade you have no prohibition in the province, and you run counter to public opinion in that province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, if I had any doubt that the wholesale trade coulc^ not be prohibited I would give consideration to the matter. But with all the respect I have for the hon. gentleman's opinion, I have not any doubt that the wholesale trade can be dealt with as effectually as the retail trade. I am dealing now with buying and, selling.


William Cameron Edwards: Do not the wholesalers get their licenses from the provinces?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I know that in the province of Quebec they issue a wholesale liquor license, and a retail liquor license. The license that comes from the Dominion, as I understand it, is the inland revenue license for the manufacture. As to the manufacture, I am not prepared to speak so positively.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not mean tc refer to that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then I misapprehend
the hon. gentleman's statement. He spoke of the wholesale trade as contrasted with the retail trade. If it is a question of manufacture, then, to come back to what I said at the outset, we are endeavouring to deal with this thing for the provinces of Canada. Each province can legislate to protect itself against the free use or consumption of liquor, and we are prepared to supplement it to the extent of the suggested amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver, namely, that if any man who manufactures in a province abuses the fact of his being there, so as to violate the provincial law, it is suggested-and, as at present advised, I expect to be prepared to accept that suggestion-that we should withdraw the inland revenue license, which will end his manufacture. The provincial law will protect the people of the province, and all that would be left would be the manufacture for export purposes exclusively1. If a man is manufacturing whisky, let us say, in Ontario-and let us assume for a moment that Quebec is a non-prohibitory province and Ontario is a prohibitory province-what injury will be done the province of Ontario because

whisky is being manufactured within that province and goes into the province of Quebec for consumption there? Or, to carry it a step further, if we assume that all the provinces have declared that they do not want liquor sold within their borders, what injury can come to any province or to the Dominion, if within one of the provinces liquor is manufactured exclusively for export and goes to people outside who do not take the same view of * this subject that we dp? With this suggested amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver, it does seem to me that we come to the assistance of the provinces in creating a situation where the manufacturer	who Will	not	see to it
that his distilling infringes no provincial law, shall have	no license.
That would be an end of his business. That would he a prohibition of the manufacture upon any man who does not absolutely conform to the provincial law. If I am right in the view that the importation for unlawful purpose being guarded against the manufacture being carried on in the province, does not injure the people of the province if they are locally protected against it, we should pause and consider what is the evil to-day within Canada that would be remedied by the entire suppression of the manufacture of liquor even for export.


John Hampden Burnham: I would ask the minister if this principle that he is enunciating is this: so long as we are not injured, we do not care a rap about the people outside? If the province, therefore, not caring about other people and being willing to take the revenue or whatever direct or indirect benefit may arise from the manufacture of liquor, does not see fit to prohibit the manufacture of it, there is no reason why the Dominion Government should prohibit. We might as well have whatever money there is in it as long as we are not injured by the consumption of it. That seems to be the stand of the province of Ontario.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are quite willing
to let other people be the judges of what injures them. That, I think, is the better way of putting it. We rather like to think ourselves competent to be the judges of what injures us. Say that the people in South America think that whisky is good for them. Is there any duty upon this Parliament to legislate to protect the people of South America from what they think is good for them? Of course, we may have such a conviction of the intrinsic -evil of this as
to press upon ourselves that in a great humanitarian cause we ought to legislate for the protection of the outside world.


William Pugsley: Under this Bill as proposed, it would be legal, would it not, for a distillery in Ontario to sell to a wholesale dealer in Ontario who would tell the distiller that he intended to export the liquor to some province where a prohibitory law was not in force?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Not if the province of
Ontario chose tb legislate that it would not be. We will not give Ontario or anyone else any more prohibition than they give themselves. Let us say that Ontario prohibits the distiller and every one else from selling liquor for consumption in Ontario; then our Bill will not help them, because they do not need any help. They have authority over the sale by that distiller within the province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And over the manufacture too?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not prepared to
say that they have authority to prohibit the manufacture if the manufacture is being carried on in such manner as not to constitute its consequences a local evil within the province. Although their lordships were careful not to give us any definition of what they had in view, I should suppose that probably the manufacture absolutely and exclusively for export could not come under that definition.


William Pugsley: Suppose	it were done
in this way. The wholesale men in Ontario have their retail customers in various provinces in the Dominion. Could the provincial legislature prohibit the distillers from appointing these wholesale men as their agents for the purpose of export? If the local legislatures cannot do that and this Parliament will not prevent its being done, the distillers through their wholesale agents could distribute the liquor all through Ontario and so defeat the prohibitory law of the province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Any one, whether he is a manufacturer or not, can manage to sell whisky in violation of the law of Ontario. Tim distiller will be like every one else when he is selling his whisky in Ontario, if Ontario prohibits his selling it he will be violating the law.


William Pugsley: Suppose he appoints
the wholesale dealer his agent, ostensibly for export, and the liquor is sent to the warehouses of the wholesale dealers?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The wholesale dealer proceeds to violate the law by selling in Ontario.


William Pugsley: That is what the temperance people want to stop if they can.
Mr. DOHE^tTY: They have their law, and they will punish that man if he violates it. Shall we punish people for violation of provincial laws within the limits of the province? Surely the provinces can take care of that as well as we can, and just as effectively.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend knows that this legislation which he introduced to-day was framed-and it was so heralded -with the view of standing behind those provinces which adopted prohibition. There is a big movement to-day in Canada in favour of prohibition. It is one of the spiritual sides of the present war; the people -I will not say in every province, but generally speaking-are in favour of prohibition. The Government says: Until it is conceded that this is the general feeling throughout Canada in all the provinces, we will leave this matter to the provinces themselves. Can any one deny that at least two and perhaps three provinces are to-day wedded to total prohibition?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Why do they not pass it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The province of Ontario, of which I am a resident, is to-day strongly and overwhelmingly in favour of total prohibition.


John Hampden Burnham: No, that is not correct.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Whilst I was not ready the other evening to stand by the motion of the member for Vancouver, because I am not convinced that in all provinces the sentiment is unanimous, yet my temperance principles will impel me to stand by any province which adopts prohibition for itself: I understood that my hon. friend would come here with legislation that would make good that prohibition in the particular province. I know that my hon. friend would not resort to quibbling; he has too great a reputation for that. But he knows that his legislation will not be backed by public opinion in the province of Ontario if it does not go further. If you do not prevent the distillation of whisky and strong beverages in the province of Ontario, you are not meeting public opinion as expressed in this province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Have they every expressed it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister knows-I can appeal to any member from the province of Ontario here this evening-that public opinion in this province has been overwhelmingly expressed of late in favour of a measure of total prohibition.


John Hampden Burnham: I deny that.


Charles Joseph Doherty: When Ontario shall have passed a measure of total prohibition -let us understand the word-it will have a measure of total prohibition, because we will keep the liquor from coming into the province from outside; and if the province of Ontario wants to. say there shall be no liquor in Ontario-let us not talk about manufacture-they have a right to say so.
(Mr. LEMIEUX: I am glad to take my hon. friend at his word-


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is my view of it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But now let us put a concrete case. If to-morrow the Legislature of Ontario declares that it is the wish and the desire of the .province, speaking through its representatives, to have total prohibition, and that it is necessary to have legislation from the Dominion Parliament in order to make effective that total prohibition, do I understand my hon. friend to say that he will give the province of Ontario the measure of relief it will ask?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Ontario will not need the slightest measure of relief when she gets her mind made up to get total prohibition. If she chooses to consider that for the abatement of the evil, as a local evil, the essential thing is that there shall be no liquor in Ontario, let her say so by her Legislature, and that will be, in my opinion, .a good law and an effective law, and she will not need any assistance from this Dominion.


William Pugsley: Does the minister say that the Provincial Legislature can say that there will be no liquor manufactured in Ontario for export?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I believe she can say there shall be no liquor in Ontario.


William Pugsley: For export?
iMr. DOHERTY: If she wants to go on and add these words she may put doubt upon it, but she can say there shall be no liquor in Ontario, and then there will be no right for any man to have liquor in Ontario.


William Cameron Edwards: I thought some time ago that I understood this Bill. It seemed to me to he very simple and very readily understandable. , But I am not sure, after the Bill has oome under the dissecting knives of lawyers on both sides of the House, that I am not in the same position as the man who undertook to eat a very tough piece of beefsteak, and who, although he was a very strong man, after he had completed the act of mastication, was too weak to swallow the beef-it had taken all his strength to masticate it. It seems to me that if the province of Ontario wants to prevent or prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors as a beverage within the province of Ontario two Acts are necessary. One of these Acts lies entirely within the power of the Provincial Legislature, and the other within the power of this Parliament. What are those two necessary Acts? The Provincial Government can pass an. Act prohibiting the sale by any person or persons within the province of Ontario of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes to any other person or persons. That includes not only the man in the retail, but in the wholesale trade, and the distiller and brewer as well. That is to say, Ontario can say to any man in the province of Ontario, no matter whether he be in the retail trade, or a private citizen, or a man in the wholesale trade, or a distiller, or a brewer, you shall not sell liquor for beverage purposes to any person in Ontario. But that is not enough, and in order to make prohibition effective what more is needed? While that Act would apply to every person in the province, it would not apply to persons outside, and the difficulty of prohibiting or preventing the sale for beverage purposes in Ontario rests upon the fact that some person in Quebec or Manitoba may send liquor into Ontario. This Act, as I understand it, steps in and says: You in the province of Ontario say you do not want any person to sell liquor to any person else in that province; you can pass laws affecting people inside of your own bounds, making it an offence for any person, brewer, distiller, wholesaler or retailer to sell to any one else within the province. That is as far as you can go. Then this Act steps in and says: We will do that act which is necessary to make your Act effective, we will prevent any person in Quebec or Manitoba or any other province sending any liquor into the province of Ontario for beverage purposes. There you have your prohibition. Suppose you start in Ontario to get Dominion-wide pro-
hibition? Take the case of Hiram Walker, one of the distillers in Ontario. Ontario passes a prohibitory Act and by it tells Hiram Walker that he must not sell liquor to any person in Ontario for beverage purposes, and the province can make the fine as high as they want to. Quebec comes along and passes a prohibitory law, and then Hiram is shut out of Quebec. Manitoba comes along and passes a similar law, and Hiram is shut out of Manitoba. So each province could shut Hiram out from sending his liquor into that province. What does that amount to? Then after each province goes as far as it wants to in preventing the use of liquor for beverage purposes within its bounds, the firm of Walker or any other distiller is in this position, that they cannot sell their liquor to any person within the province of Ontario where their works are, or to any person within any other province that has passed a prohibitory law. Of course a prohibitory law would apply to all Canada if each province passed such a law. But the distiller can still run his manufacturing establishment and sell liquor to the United States or to England or to the Argentine Republic or any other part of the world. I entirely agree-and I feel it is worth while to express my pleasure at being able to agree with the hon. member for St. John in some things-in the hon. member's expression of approval of the local option law. I also agree in the opinion expressed by him that there should be a strong public sentiment behind any prohibitory law. I entirely agree with that. I want to say that no person who believes in local option can disbelieve in the right, of the province to handle this matter as a province, and that no person who believes in provincial autonomy, in the provinces passing or not passing prohibitory laws, can conscientiously advocate that this Parliament should pass a law to prohibit the manufacture and importation of intoxicating liquors. I say that no person who believes in each province having a local prohibitory law for itself, if it chooses, can conscientiously ask that this Parliament should pass a law to prohibit the manufacture and importation of intoxicating liquor, because the moment this Parliament passes an Act to prohibit the manufacture and importation of liquors that moment this Parliament overrides the opinion, perhaps, of British Columbia or of Quebec. We will assume that Quebec says: We are not prepared to pass a prohibitory law, that the

sentiment in the province is not sufficiently strong to warrant it. Hon. gentlemen would not argue that it would be wise on the part of this Parliament to pass an Act which would enforce on that province, contrary to the sentiment of the majority of the people of that province, an Act which must necessarily be ineffective and inoperative because there would not be sufficient sentiment behind it. I think I have stated the effect of the Act fairly, and I believe that it all comes, as I said before, to those two points. If a province passes a prohibitory law-and it can pass a prohibitory law that applies to a distiller or a brewer just the same as it applies to a private ciizen,-it can prohibit selling to any person within the province but it cannot prohibit a person in the province of Quebec from selling to a person in the province of Ontario. But this Act steps in and does that very thing which it is necessary to do to make the Act effective within the limits of whatever province sees fit to pass prohibitory legislation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Cannot you more
effectively prohibit the sale by the distillery by wiping out the distillery itself?


William Cameron Edwards: No, I do not think so. I do not think that would be fair to the other provinces. Let us suppose that in one province there was a sentiment of 75 per cent against prohibition; will my hon. friend say that in such a province a prohibitory law could be made effective? I am of the opinion that you want a strong public sentiment behind a prohibition law or any other kind of sumptuary law. I also believe that if you pass a law, such as a sumptuary law, against public sentiment, and that law proves to be ineffective, you have done harm to the cause you want to benefit, because you have made the law a farce. But if the sentiment in the province of Quebec is strong for prohibition Quebec will pass a prohibitory law. The same is true of all the provinces, and that being so, of what earthly use would it be for the distilleries to continue their business? If their sales were confined to the Dominion of Canada, and if each of the provinces passes a prohibitory law, they would automatically go out of business. After each of the provinces has passed a prohibition measure it will be time enough for this Parliament to consider the closing down of the distilleries and breweries, even those that are selling to outside countries. 1 do not think it would be wise legislation
on the part of this Parliament to undertake to do'that at the present time while opinion is being formed in the various provinces.


George Eulas Foster: It is pretty nearly twelve o'clock, there is another day after this .and we have had a pretty extended preliminary canter. Is the committee prepared to pass this clause and rise and report progress?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) is very desirous that he should 'be allowed to speak on this first section. The Minister of Justice intimated that he would go on as far as possible. I do not see much object in passing the clause because it may be that upon consideration some amendment will he suggested to it. The Minister of Justice himself intimated that he might amend that clause. Perhaps we had better rise and report progress.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is one amendment that I would -be disposed to suggest to the first clause and that would be to provide a maximum as well as a minimum penalty. Amended in that way, I would be glad if the clause were passed. I do not think it need interfere with anybody's liberty of discussion and we could truthfully report that we had made some progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Sir George Foster, the House adjourned at 11.56 p.m.
Tuesday, April 4, 1916.