1925-06-15

PEIGAN INDIAN BAND

Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the petition of Philip Big Swan and others in the Peigan reserve be read.
The Clerk Assistant thereupon read the petition as follows:
Petition to the hon. House of Commons assembled _
The petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:
That a portion of the Peigan Indian reserve has been leased to the Hon. A. J. McLean, although a large majority of the Indians voted against the lease;
That the Indians were assured by Commissioner Laird, who negotiated the treaty with them in 1877, that their reserves could not be occupied without their consent;
Therefore we the undersigned members of the Peigan band pray that the said lease to Hon. A. J. McLean should be cancelled and the land restored to the Peigan band.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Speaker, I desire to discuss this petition, but I have had some conversation with the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs (Mr. Stewart), and I understand he would prefer that the discussion should take place on the Indian estimates and that he will arrange that these estimates be discussed at an early date, preferably in the afternoon. If the minister will give me that assurance now, I shall be quite willing to forego discussion of the petition at the present time.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Superintendent General of Indian Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to give the hon. gentleman an opportunity of having the matter fully ventilated at a reasonable hour, preferably in the afternoon, when the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs are before the House.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved:
That on and after the 16th June instant, until the end of the present session, 'the House shall meet at eleven o'clock in the morning of each sitting day, and that in addition to the usual intermission at six o'clock p.m., there shall be also an intermission every day from one to three o'clock p.in_
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to my hon. friend that we have a lot of committees still sitting, and I do not see how the work can very well be advanced if we take up the whole day, unless hon. gentlemen |are to absent themselves from perhaps the more important sphere of their labours. Anyhow,
I would suggest that we should not commence morning sittings until Wednesday. I know we have some very important business to look after to-morrow morning, and I would ask my hon. friend to consent to the motion being so amended.


Mr. CRERAR:: The day after to-morrow? Sir HENRY DRAYTON: Yes.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: We might as well start
to-morrow.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It gives us one day's grace.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let us get through.


Mr. W. C. GOOD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, an important committee meeting has been called for Wednesday morning, and I think other meetings are in contemplation. It seems to me that it will very seriously interfere with the work of the committees if this motion is put into effect.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I rather agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Good). There are several very important committees still sitting, and it seems to me that a great deal of work will not get the attention it should get if we start morning sittings tomorrow, or even on Wednesday. I think the motion should be further postponed.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Mr. Speaker, the government has no desire to prevent the House of Commons doing its work but is trying to accelerate progress. Some of the committees referred to are sitting while the House is in session; the fact of the House sitting in the forenoon would not make any difference in that respect. However, if Wednesday could be agreed upon it would be perfectly satisfactory to the government. If not, we will let the motion stand until to-morrow.
Prisons Act


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Wednesday.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Thursday.


George Perry Graham: What do we say?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Mr. Speaker, there are several important committees at work, the committee on Agriculture, for instance, that is dealing with the Grain Act. I do not anticipate that they will be through for two or three days yet at any rate, and they were sitting two or three times a day last week. There is also an important measure before the Banking and Commerce committee, and there are other committees still busy. I would suggest that the government might wait two or three days to see how this committee work progresses, and if it is pretty effectively cleaned up we' might start morning sittings Thursday.


George Perry Graham: We will let the motion
stand until to-morrow.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The motion
stands as a notice of motion for to-morrow.



NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS AT QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 205 to amend an act respecting the national battlefields at Quebec.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the first reading of Bill No. 206, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
He said: This bill provides that any female person in the Maritime provinces being a Protestant above the age of sixteen who is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for at least two months may be sentenced to imprisonment in the Interprovincial Home for Young Women at Coverdale, in the county of Albert, in the province of New Brunswick.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Customs and Excise) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 207, for carrying into effect a treaty signed 6th June, 1924, between His Majesty in respect of Canada and the United rMr. Graham.]
States of America, for the suppression of smuggling operations and for other purposes.
He said:	The object of this bill is to give
power to the Governor in Council to make regulations in order to (put into effect the treaty which has been signed with the.United States for the suppression of smuggling.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 195, from the Senate, for the relief of Mary Ella Mackey.-Mr. Ryckman,
Bill No. 196, from the Senate, for the relief of Melvin Grant	Cowie.-Mr. Garland
(Carleton).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
NORTHWEST REBELLION-MOUNTED POLICE Mr. BLACK (Yukon):
Referring to questions and answers concerning special remuneration of military forces for services in Northwest Rebellion reported in Hansard of June 4, 1925, at page 4004, is it the intention of the government to recompense the Northwest Mounted Police veterans who served in the Northwest Rebellion on the same basis as others who served?
Lion. Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: In
reply to this question, the situation is that immediately following the circumstances in connection with the Northwest Rebellion, the government of that day provided for compensation by way of pension for those who took part therein, and it is not the intention of the government to-day to reopen this legislation after so many years have elapsed.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
CANADIAN PENITENTIARIES-EMPLOYEES Mr. DESLAURIERS:
1.	How many employees were there on the 1st April, 1925, in each of the Canadian penitentiaries?
2 What was the name, rank, creed and salary of each such employee and the date of first appointment?
3.	How many employees were there on the 1st of April, 1915, in each of the Canadian penitentiaries?
4.	What was the name, rank and creed of each such employee and the date of first appointment?

Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	How many hog graders are on the pay roll of the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What amount has been paid to such graders, respectively, as salaries, wages, and expenses, for the year ending March 31st, 1924?

Questions as Orders
3.	How many veterinary inspectors and lay inspectors, respectively, are employed by the department in the inspection of animals slaughtered, and the carcasses of such animals in abattoirs and packing-houses in Canada, during the year ending March 31st, 1924?
4.	What amount has been paid in salaries and wages to such veterinary and lay inspectors, respectively, for the time mentioned above?
5.	What number of hogs have been graded by government inspectors during the year referred to?
G. What was the total weight of hogs so graded and the percentage of the whole in each grade or classification made by the government officials?
7.	How does the output of said packing-houses correspond as to grade for home consumption or for export, with the classification of live animals made by government graders?
8.	Is any classification of the output of packinghouses made by the government in accordance with that made of animals purchased?
9.	If not, why is this not done?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DEBT AND REVENUE
Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	What is the total debt of the Canadian National Railways and all its subsidiaries up to the 31st of March, 1925?
2.	What was the total revenue of the said railways for the years ending March 31, 1920, 1921, 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1925?
3.	What was the deficit or surplus for each year from 1920 up to 1925, inclusive?


CAMP BORDEN-PERSONNEL
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	What is the actual personnel of Camp Borden?
2.	What is the number of officers?
3.	Of that number, how many are French Canadians?
4.	What is the number of soldiers?
5.	What is the total annual cost of this camp?


GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES-SALARIES
Mr. McQUARRIE:: 1.	How many employees of the government receiving salaries of $3,000 or over have received increases of salary since the beginning of the fiscal year 1923-24, and how many have had their salaries decreased during the same time?
2.	What was the original salary in every case, and the amount of increase or decrease?
3.	What increases or decreases of the employees of the government receiving $2,000 to $3,000 were made during the same time, giving the same information regarding the number of persons affected with increases or decreases?
4.	What were the increases or decreases in salary of employees of the government receiving $2,000 or less, with the same information regarding the number of employees affected, amounts of increases or decreases, and original salary?
HOME BANK DEPOSITORS Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved:
For a return showing the names of depositors of the Home Bank of Canada for sums of *10,000 or over who will benefit by legislation now being considered for the relief of depositors of said bank.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, when the legislation affecting the Home Bank was before the House, fears were expressed from many quarters of the House that speculators might take advantage of this knowledge. I do not believe it is in the public interest to place all these names in print where they will be available to speculators. but I am prepared to show whatever lists I have to my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Church), and indeed to any member of the House. Under the circumstances, perhaps my hon. friend would drop the resolution.


Mr. CHURCH:: What I want is for the
minister to lay on the table the report of the liquidator, Mr. E. R. C. Clarkson, showing how this money is distributed. I think the country is entitled to know that in the case of the larger depositors.


James Alexander Robb: I would be prepared, when the money has been distributed, to table the report, but I wish to avoid this publicity now so that speculators will not have the opportunity of finding out who is going to be paid.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would point
out to my hon. friend that he can, of course, resist the motion, but he has hardly given a ground on which to resist it. The period when speculators migh be feared is over. Now that the government has taken action, my hon. friend need not be afraid of anybody being approached by speculators, because the depositors know they will draw their money.


James Alexander Robb: There is something in that,
if the measure has passed the Senate, but I am not sure that it has.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 1 do not think it will be very long before it is dealt with there. That is hardly an objection.


James Alexander Robb: I will not press my objection,
on the understanding that the Finance department will decide when this information will be made available.


George Newcombe Gordon: Dropped.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No.


George Newcombe Gordon: Yes, the motion is dropped by the mover upon the undertaking of the minister.


UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
DISMISSAL OF MR. LEVI BLACQUIERE Mr. DOUCET:
For a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and others in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Levi Blacquiere from the position of lighthouse keeper at Rustico, Prince Edward Island, together with a copy of the evidence taken at the investigation and the investigator's report in relation thereto.
Home Bank

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider a proposed resolution declaring it expedient to introduce a measure to constitute a Board of Audit.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subj ect matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House. Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. A. B.COPP (Secretary of State) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting ito consider a proposed resolution regarding reparation for losses suffered by Canadian nationals during the late war.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Acting Minister of Customs and Excise) moved that the House go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following proposed resolution :
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Excise Act, chapter 51 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, and to provide that a license (to stem Canadian raw leaf tobacco may be granted to any person who has complied with the Act and regulations, on payment of the sum of two dollars, whether such license has a full year or part of a year to run from the date when it is granted; and that the minister shall have power to make such regulations as he deems necessary or advisable for carrying out the proposed legislation.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to refer to the action taiken in connection with a certain order for a notice of motion for the production of papers. It is not competent for an hon. member to withdraw his notice of motion. A notice can only be withdrawn, under rule 43, by leave of the House, and even in that case leave must be granted without a negative voice. Leave of the House was not (asked for in this case. As matters stand now I would assume that the course would be as intimated by my hon. friend the 
Acting Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and that the return should be made just as soon as the Senate has dealt with this question.


George Newcombe Gordon: I think it is
too late now to bring this matter up; it was dealt with earlier in the sitting.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I desire to point out that the Chair did not ask the House for leave to withdraw the motion, and no opportunity was given for submitting the point to the Chair. Under rule 43 the Chair, before leave is granted, must ask the House whether the hon. member has leave to withdraw. That was never done. The question is whether the rules of the House should not be observed by the Chair as well as by hon. members.


Thomas Langton Church: I did not withdraw the
motion. I asked' that it should stand as I understood the minister said he would let me have part of the information.


George Newcombe Gordon: I draw the
hon. member's attention to this faet: I asked the hon. member if he desired to withdraw the motion. He nodded to me and said: "stand." I then asked the House if the mover of the resolution should have leave to withdraw his motion.


Mr. HANSON:: Oh no. I appeal to Hansard.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not intend to argue the matter. That is the way it stands at present on .the records.


MINERS AND STEEL WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary):	I
desire to ask the Minister of National Defence if a requisition has been made to the Adjutant General for military assistance in connection with the Cape Breton situation. If so, what assistance has been asked for, and what is the number and composition of the troops actually furnished and proposed to be furnished?
Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The situation in regard to the despatch of troops is as follows: General Thacker, who is in command of the district in which the difficulty arises, in response to the requisition of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, sent to the scene of the disturbance in the latter days of last week 260 troops of the permanent force

Miners and Steel Workers
from the city of Halifax. Further requisitions were made by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia upon General Thacker, and by virtue of the power conferred upon him in the statute which was passed last year under which he is sole judge as to the number of troops that are required, he requisitioned the Adjutant General for additional troops. I have not all the telegrams here, but those that I do happen to have I will read: At five minutes after twelve, midnight, the following message was received from General Thacker by the Adjutant General:
Mayor, Sydney Mines, requests military protection to-night Sunday. Feared mob will burn wholesale stores. Mayor of Sydney requested for military protection feared strikers will loot city to-night Sunday. Cannot give protection as no troops available. Urge that further reinforcements in view of widespread area affected at least 500 additional to troops now on their way.
At 4.20 a.m. this further telegram was received from General Thacker:
Mayor of Sydney mines requested military protection twice to-night, Sunday. Mob looting Mutual grocery stores. Mob 300 reported marching from Florence to join mob at Sydney Mines. 23.30 hours: Mayor of Sydney requested military protection. Feared that mob would loot city. Cannot give as no troops available to act State of terror rapidly developing in area. Small mob set fire to petrol stores outside Dominion No. 2. Officials extinguishing hindered by mob which was dispersed by troops. G.O.C. and G.S.O. proceeded Cape Breton by troop train leaving Truro this afternoon, Sunday. Reported rioters are in possession of one machine gun but are without ammunition, also that man left Sydney for purpose of obtaining ammunition.
The result was that in the last two days troops from St. John's, Que., Toronto, and London have been ordered to the scene. I have not got the exact figures with me but I will be very glad to give them later to my non. friend.


Mr.   FORICE@: What are the dates of the last two telegrams?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They were
received yesterday and to-day, the last one at four o'clock this morning.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: I notice in this morning's papers an announcement to the effect that the Minister of Labour had departed to the scene of the strike on request. I desire to ask this administration by whose request, or by whose authority, has the Minister of Labour now gone to the strike area?


Mr. STEVENS:: And has the British North America Act been amended in the meantime?


George Perry Graham: Under the act which has been declared ultra vires the Labour Department undertook arbitration through a board. As
the act now stands the Labour Department can undertake conciliation. At the present time the troops of the federal government have gone to that area at the request of the Attorney General of the province of Nova Scotia under the statute. That, in a measure, brings the federal authorities into the arena. Some little time ago the men proposed that the Minister of Labour give his consent to act as conciliator, not as arbitrator. That could have been asked of any man in the Dominion of Canada. The president of the company at that time refused. He was asked to come to Ottawa on Saturday, and he consented tp Mr. Murdock going down to the area, being on the ground so that we could have first-hand information as to what was going on; and he is to act as a conciliator, as a mediator, between the men and the company with the consent of both. The provincial Minister of Mines is also engaged in the work of attempting to get the warring elements together, and these two will work in harmony, with the hope that peace may. be brought out of the disorder.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is
not quite clear. Has the Minister of Labour gone there as a representative of this administration or as a citizen of Canada?


George Perry Graham: I should say, as a
mediator.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it on
behalf of the government?


George Perry Graham: I would not care to draw
the line. The Minister of Labour is a member of the government of Canada. That is a fact. He has been asked by the men and by the company to act as a mediator, which he is endeavouring to do.


Mr. IRVINE:: Will the Minister of National Defence tell me if any other but military action is being taken by the federal authorities in order to arrive at a reasonable settlement of the dispute in Nova Scotia?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The statement just made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) covers the question of my hon. friend.


William Irvine: That is not an answer to
my question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is the use of splitting hairs in a matter of this kind?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Has the government, up to date, ordered all permanent force troops from Winnipeg and points east of Winnipeg to proceed to Cape Breton?
Miners and Steel Workers


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No permanent troops have been ordered' from Winnipeg. I stated to the House a short time ago the places in central Canada from which troops were ordered.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the Minister of National Defence tell me if the Chief of Staff is in command of the military situation at Cape Breton?


George Newcombe Gordon: That has been covered.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, under,
the statute, the District Officer Commanding, Colonel Thatcher is in command of troops when they are there, in regard to all their actions.


William Charles Good: All the troops that are being sent are from central parts of Canada?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: From the
military districts.
Mr. HO'CKEN: Are there not troops closer to the scene of trouble than Toronto and these other places?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is well aware that the troops that are being used are simply members of the permanent force. There are members of the permanent force in Nova Scotia, but none in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island. The next nearest force is in Quebec where the famous Twenty-second regiment is located. There are a few dragoons in St. John. After you leave Quebec, until you get to Toronto, there are no members of the permanent force available.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: Are the troops in Nova Scotia under the federal law or under provincial law?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would
advise my hon. friend to refer to the statute passed last year and he would find exactly what the position of matters was. The troops are at ail times under control of the officer or officers who have been nominated by the federal government. They are requisitioned by the Attorney General under the statute in the case of disorder, and the cost of their operations and everything relating to that phase of the matter is provided for by the province who send them out.


Mr. McDONALD (Timiskaming):: Will the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Graham) tell me if we can obtain definite information as to

how the Minister of Labour comes to be in Nova Scotia, whether it is at the behest of this government or of his own sweet will? I think my question is pretty plain and does not require explanation.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend from
Timiskaming informs us that the Minister of Labour has a sweet will. I will inform the hon. member that the minister is there at the request of the men primarily, and at the request of the men and management both now.


George Gibson Coote: Has the government any information as to the number of casualties that have occurred in Nova Scotia up to date?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The information that we have in the department is that there have been no casualties since the first outbreak, when one man was killed. A great number were wounded, both police officers and men. We have had no further information beyond that.


Mr. GARDINER:: Have there been any serious disorders in the last' twenty-dour hours in the Cape Breton area, and if so would the minister indicate what they were?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am afraid my hon. friend did not catch the first answer I made when I was questioned in regard to this matter. I read two despatches, one reaching Ottawa at midnight and one at 4.30 this morning. My hon. friend will find them in Hansard, and it will hardly be necessary to read them again. I think the House has the sense of the messages.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has not
caught the purport of my question. I desire to know if these disorders indicate organized leadership on the part of those who are creating the disturbance.


George Newcombe Gordon: I might draw
the attention of hon. gentlemen to the fact that in discussing a matter of urgent importance certain questions are permissible on the Orders of the Day, but the rule does not contemplate that inferences can be drawn from a certain state of facts-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think it
is only right that the House should be possessed of all the information on this subject, and I shall be very glad to give information to the fullest extent in my power I gather that what the hon. member wanted to ascertain was whether the report we received

Miners and Steel Workers
indicated that there was an organized combination on the part of the men. The information we have received-and it is the only information the department has obtained-is from the General Officer Commanding, who reports to the Adjutant General the information which comes to him and what information he has of his own knowledge. In the last despatch which reached here at 4.30 this morning I find the following statement, which the House can interpret for itself:
Reported rioters are in possession of one machine gun but are without ammunition, also that man left Sydney for purpose of obtaining ammunition.


Mr. CLARK:: I have not been able to hear what has been said. I should like to know whether any of the troops of the non-permanent militia have been called out, and if so from where. Also whether troops have been called out from Toronto or from other places in the province of Ontario, and if so whether from the permanent force or from the nonpermanent force?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon.
friend is a military man, and if he will refresh his memory he will know that the statute requires that no members of the non-permanent force can be called out until the whole of the permanent forces in Canada, are exhausted, and to-day there has been no call made on the non-permanent militia.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Graham) why the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act as amended respecting national emergency have not been carried out. The Nova Scotia case is a clear case of national emergency under the act as amended which received the Royal Assent last Friday, and under the decision of the Privy Council the government can step in at once and adjust this dispute. This is a clear case under the act for drastic action. The government could spend $60,000 on a similar dispute to the Privy Council in Ontario, but can do nothing here. This is a bona fide case for immediate action, a national emergency which under the new act and decision of the Privy Council exists.


George Perry Graham: The new machinery has not had very long to get oiled up. I think I have said everything I possibly can concerning the government's connection with the disturbances in Cape Breton.


Mr. WHITE:: How many members of the permanent force have now been placed under orders for Nova Scotia service?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I cannot
give my hon. friend the exact figures, but the situation is that no member of the permanent force west of the Great Lakes has been ordered to go to Nova Scotia. The order applies only to members of the permanent force in Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. EVANS:: Is the government not considering any line of action other than sending forces in there to preserve order?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When my hon. friend says that the government are sending forces there to preserve order, he knows that under the statute the government cannot do anything else. Under the law to which my hon. friend assented last year, and which was supported by all hon. gentlemen in this House, once the attorney general of a province requisitions the military forces which are maintained by the Dominion under the constitution, they are bound to be sent there. No discretion is left.


CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. EDMUND BRISTOL (Centre Toronto) :: On the first page of the Montreal
Gazette of to-day, there is a news item reading as follows:
Dominion Accused
Charged with stirring up fight on water diversion.
Washington, June 14.-Charges that the Canadian government is stirring up the states bordering on the Great Lakes to make a fight against the diversion of water from lake Michigan into the Illinois river at Chicago are being made by Congress representative William E. Hull of the Peoria, Illinois, district. The Peoria representative is at present making a "protest tour" of the middle west states, and the charges against the Dominion government are made in addresses before chambers of commerce and other commercial bodies.
Mr. Hull declares the Canadian authorities are "greedy for water power" and that if its fight to prevent diversion of the present flow of water from lake Michigan at Chicago succeeds, the United States project for an inland waterway between lake Michigan and the gulf of Mexico will be ruined.
Most of us in Canada had the idea that Chicago was in need of water for drainage purposes in order to keep those helpless people in Chicago alive, but I think this is a clear statement by a member of the United States Congress-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edmund James Bristol: What I would ask the
government is this. What action is being taken by the government in this connection, and has the United States government been
Soldier Settlement Act

informed that the water in the Great Lakes belongs to the United States and Canada, and not to Chicago?


Charles A. Stewart: The Canadian government is
very much alive to the diversion of water at Chicago and is taking all precautions necessary to protect our interests. I cannot be responsible, nor do I think the government could be responsible, for the construction placed upon the necessary action we have taken by a representative of the Senate or Congress of the United States.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the third reading of Bill No. 147, to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 6, to amend the Yukon Quartz Mining Act.
Motion agreed to and the House went mto committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
On section 1-Inscription.
Charles A. Stewart: This bill
was very carefully considered in committee and quite a number of amendments were offered. I attended the committee, and the amendments were all agreed to between the officers of our department and the members of the committee. I do not think they are controversial, and they meet the situation.. I regret the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Black) is not here, because the bill was brought in by him and he is familiar with the amendments. The amendments, however, were passed unanimously by the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are these amendments
agreeahle to the hon. member for Yukon?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I
mentioned that fact. The hon. member for Yukon brought in this bill, which is really a private bill, and the amendments were all agreed to by him.
JSection agreed to.
Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
(Mr. Bristol.]



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from May 26, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution.-Hon. Mr. Robb.-Mr. Gordon in the chair:.
That it is expedient to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919, and amending acts, and to provide that notwithstanding anything in the acts, in the case of any settler who has not repaid his indebtedness to the board, or who has not abandoned his land, or whose agreement with the board has not been terminated or rescinded, the board shall credit his account with an amount, in reduction of his indebtedness to the board, determined as follows:-
Forty per centum of the purchase price of all live stock advanced to the settler and purchasced prior to the first day of October, 1920;
Twenty per centum of the purchase price of all live stock advanced to the settler and purchased on or after the first day of October, 1920, and prior to the first day of October, 1921; and
The settler's account shall be credited with the total amount, determined as aforesaid, as on the standard date in 1925.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Robb thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 208 to amend the Soldier Settlement Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from May 25, consideration in committee of the following proposed resolution.-Hon. Mr. Lapointe.-Mr. Gordon in the chair:
That it is expedient to amend the Canada Temperance Act, chapter one hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, by the addition thereto of Part V, to provide for the prohibition of importing, sending, taking or transporting of any intoxicating liquor into any province in which such prohibitions are in force; to further provide penalties for the violation of the proposed legislation, and to provide for the revocations when such have been declared revoked by an order in council of the Lieutenant-Governor of a province affected.
Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the reason for
this legislation?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The bill which is to be introduced on this resolution is intended to limit the importation of intoxicating liquors in provinces which have not adopted Part 4 of the Canada Temperance Act, but which control the sale of liquor govemmentally. Under the present circumstances it will apply only to the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec, if they care to avail themselves of it, because all the other provinces are under Part 4 of the act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How will these two provinces come under this bill?

Canada Temperance Act


Ernest Lapointe: If an order in council
is passed requesting that the prohibitions defined in this bill shall be put into force in the province the Governor in Council will have the authority to issue a proclamation to implement that request. This is similar to the bill which was passed two years ago and rejected by the Senate.


Thomas Langton Church: Is the government in
favour of this particular class of legislation, especially in view of the recent vote in the province of Ontario and the action of the Ontario legislature. I am opposed to all prohibitory laws of this kind, whether the restriction applies to this question, social questions, race tracks, or anything else, and I do not intend to vote for any sort of prohibitory 'legislation so long as I am a member of this parliament. We are living in an age when prohibitory legislation has become a fad; everybody wants to discipline his neighbour but he is'not so anxious to discipline himself. I do not believe 'that the people of Ontario are to-day in favour of prohibition in view of the position which they have recently taken so overwhelmingly. With all due respect to the minister, I would remind him that a vote on prohibition was taken in this country by the federal government under the late revered prime minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who declared that if a referendum on prohibition carried by ballot he would put it into effect. Did he do it? No,-apparently a plat-4 pm. form that was good enough for the Liberal party to get in on is not good enough for them to stand on.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry my hon.
friend is interjecting politics into this.


Thomas Langton Church: This act and the principle of this legislation was introduced as a war measure, and in view of the vote which has been held in Ontario it must be evident to the government that public sentiment throughout that province has changed considerably in this matter. What does the Ontario government think of it? Who is asking for this legislation? Has the government considered the advisability of it in the light of the vote in Ontario?


Ernest Lapointe: To set my hon. friend's
mind at rest I hasten to assure him that this will not apply to Ontario. So far as prohibition is concerned, I may tell him that my own views do not differ very much from his. But I differ from the hon. member in this respect, that in my opinion the desire of each province in this matter should prevail. And what this
bill proposes is to give effect to the views of the several provinces. It will be easier for hon. gentlemen to discuss the measure when the bill is before the House, and I would therefore suggest that they allow the resolution to pass in the meantime, reserving their opinions until then.


John Arthur Clark: What are the views of
British Columbia on the, subject? There was considerable difference of opinion when the bill came up two years ago and in the meantime I have had no reason to change my own views. What change has there been generally that has made this legislation necessary, and what requests have been received from British Columbia? The minister might tell us what effect the bill, if passed, will have on that province.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think there
has been any great change in British Columbia. The bill which passed this House two years ago as well as the present measure have both met with the approval of the province. Both the Prime Minister of British Columbia, when he was here, and the attorney general, in correspondence, strongly recommended the enactment of it. I may say that hon. members representing British Columbia

not my hon. friend-have also urged very strongly the introduction of a bill along the lines of this resolution. My hon. friend took a prominent part in the discussion of the bill which was presented to the House two years ago, and he will recall that its purpose was to prohibit the importation of liquor except when purchased by the government of the province or by a board of commissioners appointed by the government of the province under the laws of the province. The exceptions were: first, the transportation through the province by means only of a common carrier by water or by railway if during the time it was so carried the package was not opened or broken in the ordinarly way; and, second, the importation by any person duly licensed to carry on the business of a distiller or brewer where the liquor was imported solely for the purpose of being used for blending or flavouring. There was a further exception in favour of export houses, that with the permission of the attorney general of the province they might carry on operations; but while the bill was before the committee this exception was objected to very strongly as giving too much power to the attorney general, therefore the section was withdrawn, and there will now be no exception for export houses.
Canada Temperance Act


John Arthur Clark: That is, under the proposed
legislation there will be no export or bonded warehouses in British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: They will not be able
to import.


John Arthur Clark: That provision was not in
the bill two years ago. That was our main objection.


Ernest Lapointe: It was in the bill, and
Sir Lomer Gouin, who was then Minister of Justice, moved that the section should be eliminated. Thereupon the importation, even by those export houses, was prohibited.


John Arthur Clark: In other words, no one except the provincial government will be able to bring liquor into British Columbia.


Ernest Lapointe: Except those who may
buy from the government.


John Arthur Clark: Am I correct in saying that no one will legally be able to bring liquor into British Columbia except the government of the province?


Ernest Lapointe: Except dealers or
brewers for the purpose of blending or flavouring or for transhipment.


John Arthur Clark: In other words, after this
legislation passes there can no longer be any bonded warehouses or other concerns in
the liquor business for export purposes in British Columbia?


Ernest Lapointe: If there are they will
not be allowed the right to import. We are dealing only with importation. There will be no exception as to that. They will 'be unable to import liquor into British Columbia.


John Arthur Clark: Can they bring it through
for transhipment to the United States?


Ernest Lapointe: "Transit" means that the liquor should not be warehoused in British Columbia for any length of time.


John Arthur Clark: Let me give the minister a concrete example. At the present time we have bonded warehouses in the interior at Greenwood, Rossland and other places several miles from the coast; we also have bonded warehouses in Vancouver and Victoria which are carrying on export business. Some of their ships have been seized by the United States authorities. Will this legislation put those institutions out of business?


Ernest Lapointe: I think it will.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not rising to oppose the resolution in so far as its principle is concerned. I could not do so very well because my horn, friend is adopting

the policy which we laid down years ago, and which he formerly opposed. I am very glad we have got him converted at last to the idea that the provinces should exercise autonomy in this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has been dreaming.


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, I have very vivid recollections of my hon. friend's attitude in the past, and he knows that what I say is correct. However, if he does not think he is converted it is too hot for me to attempt to convince him now. Representations have been made, and I have no doubt they have got so far as my hon. friend, that what ought to be done in connection with the prairie provinces is to prevent importation for beverage purposes except by the provincial governments. It is the evil of drink which is attacked.


Ernest Lapointe: This applies only to
British Columbia.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The prairie provinces get no relief under this at all?


Ernest Lapointe: They are under Part
4 of the Canada Temperance Act. This applies only to British Columbia, and possibly to Quebec if they care to adopt it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What about the man who needs alcohol in his manufacturing business, which he never can sell and never wants to sell as a beverage? Is his business to be interfered with; is he to be put in the hands of somebody else to be held up in connection with his supplies?


Ernest Lapointe: No, my hon. friend need not be disturbed about that. Even under Part 4, which is the strictest piart of the Canada Temperance Act, there is an exception for manufacturing purposes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not notice that in this resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is already in
the act.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not the purpose of this legislation to igive to the government of British Columbia a monopoly of the liquor traffic in that province?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend may
call it a monopoly, but the effect of the proposed legislation is to prevent the importation of liquor except through the government of the province.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That gives them a
monopoly.

C.N.R.-Branch Lines


Ernest Lapointe: I may say to my bon
friend from West York (Sir Henry Drayton) that I have taken a note of his suggestion, and if the point is not clearly covered I will add an amendment so that manufacturing concerns will not be disturbed.


John Arthur Clark: Is there not another bill in
this connection that the government propose to introduce?


Ernest Lapointe: There is another bill
on the order paper dealing with Part 4 of the Canada Temperance Act.


John Arthur Clark: Under the legislation to be
introduced on this resolution will the attorney general or the government of British Columbia have power to request the Department of Customs and Excise or the Dominion government to grant to any bonded warehouse in the province a license for export purposes?


Ernest Lapointe: The prohibition of importation will apply to all. The act will not apply unless, by order in council, the government of British Columbia asks this government to issue a proclamation to that effect.


John Arthur Clark: The proclamation would not apply, for instance, against private citizens, and except bonded warehouses?


Ernest Lapointe: No, it would be general
in its application.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Lapointe thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 209 to amend the Canada Temperance Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
(1)	That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the construction or completion prior to the thirty-first day of August, 1928, of a line of railway from Sunneybrae to Guysborough, in the province of Nova Scotia, by the Canadian National Railway Company;
(2)	That the company may issue notes, bonds and securities in respect of the said construction, and the Governor in Council may authorize the guarantee thereof ;
(3)	That provision be made for the issue of certificates as to mileage by the minister, but neither the minister in the issuance of such certificates nor the company in the performance of the work of construction and completion or in the issue of its securities shall, unless by consent of Parliament, exceed the estimated distance, expenditure and average expenditure per mile by more than fifteen per cent; and if upon final survey it appears to the company that the expenditure involved in the completion thereof will exceed the limits of expenditure estimated, the company shall not commence nor proceed with the work without first obtaining the approval of Parliament.
(4)	That the nature, terms and forms of securities to be issued and guaranteed shall be such as may be approved by the Governor in Council and signed by the Minister of Finance;
(5)	That to enable the work of completion of the said line of railway to proceed forthwith, the Gov-ernoi in Council, pending the issue and disposal of such guaranteed securities, may authorize advances to be made to the company from the consolidated revenue fund, such advances to be reimbursed to His Majesty from the proceeds of the sale or other disposition of such securities;
(6)	That the minister shall annually present to parliament a statement of the work and expenditure, advances and amount of advances reimbursed, and all such other information as he shall require or direct.

[Stage Direction]
Mileage already graded		Estimates	
Location	Mileage including existing grading	To be expended	Average expenditure per mileFrom Sunnybrae to Guysborough in the province of Nova Scotia	0	67	$ cts. 3,500,000 00	$ cts. 52,238 00
Motion agreed to, and the House went into committee, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
George Perry Graham: I would like to get this
through if I can and send it on to the Railway committee. I have put a bill in reference to this resolution through the House three times, and this is the fourth attempt. Some years
ago, before the Canadian National came into existence, when the Intercolonial was controlled indirectly at least by the Minister of Railways, a bill was put through both Houses of parliament for the construction of this line, but it was not constructed. Last year and the year before, this House passed a bill for the

C.N.R.-Branch Lines
construction of this line, but the bill did not become law. If we could get the resolution passed and sent on to the Railway committee, all the details could be discussed there. It is an old and familiar matter. There is nothing that I can say concerning it that was not said last year. If the committee would acquiesce, I would like to get this put through the committee stage, and sent on to the Railway committee.


William Charles Good: Why was construction not
proceeded with in the past?


George Perry Graham: The last two years the bill did not become law.


William Charles Good: It was killed in the Senate?


George Perry Graham: Yes. This House passed
it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not know
that it is necessary to say over again everything that has been said before on this question. I do not know that my hon. friend really has any change of heart in connection with it. This is a first-rate railway to talk about; it might be a railway to build when you have more money than you know what to do with. My hon. friend got, before, the right to build this railway, but he did not go on with it.


George Perry Graham: He did not have a chance; the government changed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have been
having any amount of talk about this railway for I dpn't know how many years. It goes back, I think, past even my hon. friend's political memory, and that is saying a whole lot. Everybody has taken a whack at it. Of course, it is a popular thing down there, but I am afraid it is not a matter of very good business. I have not changed my opinion at all one way or the other as to the commercial necessity of this line. I do not know what my hon. friend thinks his political necessities are to-day, but under the circumstances I do not think I can usefully take up any time in opposing this bill here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is only one thing the minister omitted to say to us this year that he has not said before, and that is the imminence of the provincial elections in the province of Nova Scotia. It is necessary once more to trot out this resolution for this paper railway because .in a few days the people of Nova Scotia are going to be called upon to vote for or against a moribund government down there, and it is necessary, in order to carry the county of GuySborough, that this resolution should pass this House, and that the bill founded upon it should be introduced and

passed. When that is done and the election is over, that is all we will hear of this railway, because no sane railway man in Canada would ever think of building it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Graham thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 210 respecting the construction of a line of railway from Sunnybrae to Guysborough, in the province of Nova Scotia, by the Canadian National Railway Company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUPPLY-EXPORT OF POWER

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee of Supply.
Mr. R. V. LeSUEUR (West Lambton) moved in amendment:
That the Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that it be resolved
That in the opinion of this House export of hydro electric power from Canada should be permitted only on yearly license, and no license should be issued beyond those at present outstanding except for off-peak power.
He said:	I am moving this resolution because the question involved is of grave importance to this Dominion; because I feel that it would be unwise to permit the session to close without this House recording definitely and clearly its attitude on this question of the export of power; and because I believe the resolution has merits and is both reasonable and practicable. I will endeavour to be concise in my statement of the matter.
In the first place, allow me to say that we as members of this House, no doubt have in a more or less general way a realization of the important place which hydro-electric energy to-day occupies in our national life; but I doubt whether a clear, ample, and serious appreciation of just how great a factor hydroelectric energy is in our national life to-day or how great a factor it is destined to be in our future development, can be had without a fairly detailed study of the growth and history of hydraulic power, and without a study of the uses to which hydro-electric power is put to-day. Such a knowledge and such an appreciation is possessed by men like Sir Adam Beck and Mr. J. B. Challies, men who have deveoted the greater part of their lives to the study of this question, and whose disinterested and consistent efforts towards the development of our hydro-electric power are well known. I wish to quote a few of the statements of these gentleman and their statements are entitled to much more weight as to this phase of this question than any

Export oj Power
statements I can personally make. Mr. Challies, in July, 1924, delivered an address at the World Power Conference in London on The Water-Powers of Canada. Mr. Challies was then the Director of the Dominion Water Power and Reclamation Service, and as showing the importance to us of our water-power development, I wish to make a few quotations from his address on that occasion. He said:
During approximately the last decade in Canada, while the population increased 22 per cent, the water power developed increased nearly 100 per cent, the use of water power in industry 245 per cent, and the capital invested in manufacturing industries 175 per
cent	But the water power now developed in
Canada amounts to 3,227,414 horse power and represents, including transmission and distribution, a capital investment of $688,000,000. Despite the continuous development that has taken place in the past and the 750,000 horse power of new construction now in hand, the demand constantly exceeds the supply and it is estimated that some $300,000,000 of additional capital will be needed to meet the actual power demand of the next ten years.
Again he says:
The extensive use of hydro-electrical energy is largely dependent upon and evidence of its low cost. Plate No. A-3 illustrates the source and character of the power supply for the industrial centres of the Dominion, and shows that water power not only completely dominates the situation in central Canada, where no native coal is found, but it also controls the market for industrial energy in the maritime provinces and British Columbia where excellent coal is found.
When referring to particular industries he makes some statements which I believe will enable this House to grasp in some detail just how important electrical power is to our industries. He says:
Pulp and paper manufacturing is a typical and important Canadian industry with a prosperous future, the result of two natural advantages,-abundant supply of growing pulpwood and cheap accessible motive power -in large quantities. The importance of low cost power lies in the fact that it takes practically 100 horse power to produce one ton of paper per day. It is not surprising, therefore, that motive power used in this industry is almost altogether restricted to hydraulic energy and that Canada's premier advantage and position in the pulp and paper field rests on adequate and abundant water power well distributed among extensive timbered areas.
He refers also to mining as follows:
The mining industry of Canada owes its present rapid development to water power, even coal mines use hydro-electric energy where possible. The metalliferous mines of northern Ontario now utilize in excess of IOC,000 horse power of hydro-electric energy and the development of further water power sites is rapidly proceeding in order to overtake the demand for energy. If the mines of Ontario had to depend on imported coal for their power requirements, the greatly increased operating cost would, in a great measure, have throttled [DOT] their productiveness, making the working of any but the richer deposits unprofitable and seriously reducing both the annual production and profitable life of the properties.
After stating that the total installed horsepower in Canada has grown from 975,000 to 272
3.227,414 horse-power since 1910, Mr. Challies goes on to say:
There is every reason to believe that this rate of growth will not diminish. New uses for electric current of the greatest import in industrial processes and services are being constantly discovered. Canada's strategic advantage in the location of large reserves of water-power within transmission distance of her centres of population should attract special industries to these centres in increasing numbers. Population follows industry and at once an added market is created for power for domestic and municipal uses. All the modern tendencies in the utilization of cheap power indicate that the rate of growth of hydroelectric development in Canada will increase rather than lessen.
Allow me also to refer to a statement made by Sir Adam Beck in presenting the annual report of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario for the year ending October 31, 1923. He says:
Industrial conditions throughout the province during the year have been considerably below normal, with a consequent reduction in the demand for power for industrial uses. Notwithstanding this adverse industrial condition, there has been a considerable growth in the demand for power on all systems, and on several systems the commission has reached the limit of the capacity of the existing generating plants. It is, therefore, necessary for the commission, on practically all systems, to make arrangements to secure additional power developments to meet the ever-increasing demand.
Sir, I read these quotations as being the statements of men well versed in the hydroelectric power situation of this country, and as evidencing not only the importance of hydro-electric energy in our present municipal, social and industrial life, but also the prospects for its rapid growth and its dominance of our markets for industrial energy.
Now, then, let me say a few words as to why I consider the resolution which I have moved necessary, and why I believe this House should, before the close of the session, definitely place itself on record on this question of the export of power. Some three weeks ago a file was tabled in this House, and in that file we find a letter which in part reads as follows:
On behalf of the Carillon Industrial Corporation Limited I would like to submit for the consideration of the minister and the department two revised drafts marked A and B respectively, and would be obliged if arrangements could be made to have these drafts reviewed with a view to a final agreement between the parties as to the precise forms of the leases contemplated.
Yours truly,
Carillon Industrial Corporation Limited.
I want to refer very briefly to the draft leases referred to in this letter. I will do so as briefly as I can, because these leases have already been discussed and I do it simply as a step in my argument. The first point which we note in this draft lease is that if it is executed and made binding it would grant to the lessee water-power privi-
[Stage Direction]
Export oj Power
[Stage Direction]
leges at Carillon for a period which, with the renewals, would last for about 121 years, or to December 31, 2046. The first three renewals can be demanded as of right by the company, and the last renewal can be denied by the government if the government is prepared to purchase the plant and transmission line from the company. Secondly, this draft lease, if completed, would give to the lessee the right to export all the power which is developed at Carillon falls-and which is estimated, I believe, at some 400,000 horse-power -with the exception of such horse-power as the Canadian consumer might desire to consume, but with the limit that the Canadian consumers can only secure up to 100,000 horsepower. In passing I might say that the amount which the Canadian user would be likely to use is very much limited and curtailed and possibly made impossible by two clauses in the proposed lease, one of which says that no Canadian consumer can take power in less than blocks of 10,000 horsepower. In connection with that, I point out that places like Galt, Stratford, Chatham and so on, take less than 5,000 horse-power, so that it would be a very considerable industrial centre that would take 10,000 horse-power. The Canadian consumer to get horse-power from the company must apply for it within two years from October 31, 1924, and after that period they can only get it through the minister at the end of each five-year period. With those limitations, hon. members can see how small would be the amount of power which the Canadian consumer would actually take of that 100,000 horse-power, which is his limit.
['Surely.']
Edmund James Bristol: Referring to the provisions in this contract, would the purchaser have provided by the contract the usual method of transmission of power to the different parts of Canada where the power was wanted to ibe used, if such users would have to proceed and erect transmission plants?
Mr. LeSUEUR:	There are certain clauses
regarding transmission, but I would not care to speak as to details without looking up the clauses.


Edmund James Bristol: the demand of the country calls for such development. Therefore, as regards central Canada, we have this situation, that the development and application of power should both foe in Canada if we are to get the greatest benefit; that practically the whole of the power now developed in Ontario is used; that the demand for more is pressing; and that the next point from which that power can be obtained for Ontario and central Canada is the St. Lawrence and the Carillon falls. Further, we have in Canada financial institutions and public utilities which are in a position amply to finance any scheme of power development which this country needs, and the investing public are, I believe, to-day fully acquainted with hydro bonds and fully satisfied that the development of hydro-electric energy is a business and practical proposition. We are therefore not dependent on foreign capital for the development of our hydro powers.
Let us now look for a moment at the international situation. I believe it is a fact that if we export large quantities of hydroelectric energy to the United States, there will grow up around thie places to which that hydro-electric energy is forwarded, industries in which will be invested large sums of money as well as their workmen's houses, so that you will have created a large industrial and municipal community situated around the point of application of that hydro-electric energy. In that case, whether your license is yearly or not, a very disturbing situation may arise. We must remember two things: in the first place, it is almost an historic fact that yearly licenses are as a matter of course, renewed from year to year provided the licensee has not defaulted or committed some act contrary to the terms of his license; and, in tihe second place, hydro-electric power is not like any other commodity. Ordinary goods you can store in large quantities and for a long time, as a rule; and when the usual supply is cut off you can secure purchases in other markets. But hydro-electric energy is a service and is transmitted over an expensive and fixed transmission system; it is developed at fixed points at a large cost; and the cost per horse-power is usually fairly stable and fairly low. Industries that build up their fabric upon hydro-electric energy depend upon these conditions; and these conditions existing, if we attempted to withdraw our hydro energy from any foreign community such action would I think constitute a proper case for diplomatic intervention on the part of any government in the interests of its nationals.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any danger on the other hand, if we possess power which we might export and would not, of there arising an international bitterness because of such refusal, with possible reprisals? In such an event, might not the United States refuse to send us coal, for instance, for use in Ontario?
Mr. LeSUEUR:	I do not think that such
a situation could arise if we did not now make it possible. We shall need in the very near future all the power that we can develop at Carillon and on the St. Lawrence generally, and there is no reason why we should permit a situation to arise such as is suggested. Once such a situation did come up, then I think that any withdrawal of power would be very serious and might lead to grave complications. But if we see to it that nothing of the kind shall be possible I do not see how any reprisals can take place. These are my reasons for thinking that this question of the export of power should be very carefully considered. A wise course adopted now might obviate a very embarrassing condition of things in the future, and I do not think that a yearly licensing system, permitting the export of power extensively, would save us from the consequences that I have described.
There will be, I assume, very little question of that portion of the resolution that calls for the export of power on a yearly license only. As to the second part of the resolution, providing that no license shall be issued beyond those at present outstanding, except for off-peak power, I would offer a word of comment. We all know that at certain hours of the day the use of electricity becomes much heavier. Between five and seven o'clock you always get a peak, and after that your graph descends rapidly, showing a smaller amount used. The filling-up of these gaps is what we 5 p.m. would call the off-peak power, and a contract for off-peak power is quite a common occurrence, being found very useful both to purchasers and sellers. It is essentially not a permanent contract. I do not think that any new industry would start up or any old industry greatly expand on a contract for off-peak power, but at the same time I believe it serves all the purposes of the present situation and is both reasonable and practical.
For the above reasons I believe that the amendment has merits that should commend it to the House and should receive its approval.

Export oj Power


Richard Burpee Hanson: I
desire to say just a few words in seconding the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Le-Sueur), and in doing so I want to state my adhesion to the principle underlying it. Waterpower is both a raw material and an implement ; I submit that it is in no sense a finished product. And if we in this country are to take the fullest advantage of that with which nature has so bountifully endowed us, it is our duty to approach with the utmost wisdom the whole question of the utilization of this great natural resource. I can quite understand that in days gone by it was the most natural thing in the world that there should have arisen a business of exporting power. In days when the value of electrical energy was not so high as it is to-day and when the industrial life of the country was scant and meagre in certain communities, especially where nature had endowed the country with undeveloped water-power, the expense of the financing and flotation of hydro electric propositions being also as heavy as it was, it became necessary that an immediate market should be found for the energy thus developed and1 an immediate income and return should be at the command of those who were pioneers in the movement. Be that as it may, and notwithstanding that the companies which had been financed by bond flotation found it advisable to carry out a policy of exporting power on long-term contracts at a very low rate to ensure the return of an adequate revenue to the promoters and to make the sale of securities safe, that being an important factor in the industry, I still think that nearly all of the promoters of these companies, who had vision enough to go into the business, have found that it has been a great mistake. To-day they find themselves, in the lifetime of their institutions, tied up to long-term, low-priced contracts which prevent them from making the money out of the industry which they otherwise could and should have made.
I have not very much to say concerning the export of power in the past; it is to the future that we should look. We have high hopes of being able to build up our industrial life here, but unfortunately for the central portions of Canada, especially the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, we have no coal which will produce power. But the very same parts of the country which have been treated so scantily by nature in this respect have been abundantly blessed with water-power, being particularly rich in that resource. As has been stated here this afternoon, the available water-powers of this country, estimated by government officials, are no less
than eighteen million horse-power. This -total includes not only those water-powers which are easily available for exploitation in the immediate future, but also those which are very far afield and of which there is no immediate prospect of development. Of the eighteen million gross horse-power available, something over three million horse-power has already been developed, and I think it has been demonstrated this afternoon that in Ontario the limit will be reached within the next twelve months. The fact should impress-itself upon hon. members and upon the people, that while we have a very substantial development in Ontario, the maximum is already in sight, and that with respect to any powers in this or in the adjacent province of Quebec which are undeveloped the greatest care should be exercised as to exportation. An hon. gentleman to my left during the course of the remarks of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. LeSueur) raised the old bogey of reprisals. I do not see how there can be any possibility of reprisals by our neighbours with respect to that which they have never had. I can quite understand the suggestion might apply to the withdrawal of power which they already enjoy. And let me say to hon. members that in any given instance where power has been heretofore exported, it will be found that upon an attempt being made it is practically impossible to discontinue its export, for investments have grown up and the people on the other side have become dependent upon the imported power not only for their industrial but for their community life. In my own province the first hydro-electric development was not a large one, that at the Aroostook falls on a branch of the St. John river, wholly within the Dominion. That development was made years ago by a gentleman living in the adjacent state of Maine. Many of the bonds were sold there, as well as most of the stock, the remainder being held in Canada. For the first ten or fifteen years every horse-power of electrical energy developed was exported to the United States down through the county of Aroostook to a chain of towns that have grown up there during the past forty or fifty years. To-day those communities are wholly dependent on that power for many of their municipal conveniences, and the installation is the only one within reasonable distance of any of them. I would lay it down as being incontrovertible that should the export of power in that particular instance be refused, the feelings of those communities would be outraged, and I have not the slightest doubt that the question would soon pass from the
Export of Power

local into the international arena. Conceivably no government in this country could stand by and see those communities rendered helpless by the withdrawal of power. I need not labour the point. It is simply a concrete illustration of a situation that has arisen in my province. In a more marked degree I understand that in other portions of the Dominion along the international boundary a similar situation exists.
With respect to the future, I think the country has every right to know what policy is to be pursued by the government in power. I must say that the statements made by members of the government who have spoken on this particular question recently have had a very disturbing effect. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) was supposed to have stated1 where he stood on this proposition, but I must confess that he left me in absolute doubt. I think the time has arrived, especially with respect to the Carillon waterpower, when we should know definitely where the government stands, and I am very glad that the hon. member for West Lambton has brought this vital question before the House. As to the principle involved, I do not think that in this quarter of the House there is any division of opinion. We believe that, as stated in the terms of the resolution itself, there should be no further exportation of electric energy over and above that which is already allowed, except as specified, and then only under licenses which the exportees or consumers should understand may be cancelled on the termination of reasonable notice.
Some hon. gentleman has stated that power is something we have to sell. Well, if you view it as a finished product, which I do not, it is a commodity the export of which would bring certain returns to the country. But how disproportionate those returns would be compared with the application of the principle of using the power at home. With regard to the effect of refusing to lend this power to our neighbours in return for What after all is a mere pittance compared with the total to be developed, may I point out that in one section of the province of Quebec during recent years no less than nineteen branch American factories have been established because of the cheap water-power there available. I refer to the Eastern Townships. I have heard hon. gentlemen in certain quarters of this House sneer at the idea of the establishment of branch American factories in this country. Well, I never thought it was a bad thing for us to have outside capital come in. For at least the next half century Canada will be dependent for its development upon the importation of foreign capital, whether it fMr. LeSuEur.]
be in the form of direct investments in the industries themselves or in the form of loans, and I think in either form it is something that is wholly to be desired. It may interest hon. gentlemen to have a list of the factories ,to which I have referred. Heading the list is the Canadian Connecticut Cotton Company Ltd. Hon. gentlemen from the Eastern Townships of Quebec are no doubt familiar with that company. Will any one of them say that the establishment of that branch has not been of immediate material advantage to the community at large? Then there are the Panther Rubber Company, Dominion Hair Felt Company, Kenworthy Brothers Company, Dominion Blank Book Company, Edwin G. Schutz Company, Canadian Manhasset Cotton Company Ltd., Canadian United States Knitting Company, Premier Silk Mills, Ltd., Waterville Veneer & Panel Co., Canadian H. W. Gossard Company Ltd., Butterfly Hosiery Company, Jenckes Canadian Company, Macdonald Wire Goods Company, Dominion Silk Dyeing and Finishing Company, Franco-Canadian Dye Works Ltd., and Paramount International Company of Canada Ltd.
All of these companies, I am credibly informed, have come to Canada not particularly because of the tariff, though incidentally that has had an effect upon the establishment of these branch factories in this country, but they have come to Canada largely because of the availability and to be near the source of cheap power. I therefore from that point of view, the establishment of industries in our country, and that appeals to me very strongly, urge upon the government and the House and the country the very great desirability of adopting such a policy as will keep (his great natural asset for the development of industry in our own country. If, however, hon. gentlemen in this House want this country to be merely a country where we shall produce nothing but raw materials for export, if they do not desire anything in the form of industrial life, and I have heard hon. gentlemen give expression to that point of view, then I say one of the best means of limiting the activities of this country to that particular branch of production is to grant the privilege such as is asiked for by the Carillon promoters, and allow the practically unlimited export of this implement of production from now on. If, on the other hand, hon. gentlemen have a higher vision as to the destiny of Canada, if it is their desire to promote industry, not confined to the local market at all, but the development of an export trade, and no country I submit, is better

Export oj Power
si'.uated for export trade than are the Maritime provinces of the Dominion, some heed will have to be paid to the potentialities of our undeveloped water and to legislation and regulations that will surround and properly safeguard the export of hydro-electric energy.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, there is not very much difference between what hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken have urged, and what has always existed in Canada, cr for the last few years at least. At the present time the export of power to the United Sates is not so very great. Two organizations export practically all of it. Those are the Cedar Rapids Power Company, exporting to Massena, and the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario. The Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario has an old contract they took over which dated prior to the passing of the act referring to the export of power. There might be difficulties in the way of recalling that one, but I am not sure the difficulties are paramount in recalling even that power if it was so desired, as well as the other. If I recollect aright, the Cedar Rapids Company recalled their power during the war, for war purposes, or at all events they gave their consent to Canada doing that.
But the question of the export of power is, of course, altogether different at the present time as compared with conditions existing a few years ago. I am not so sure that the time may not come when we shall have to ask for at least some of the power that is being exported to be returned to Canada if the need exists, and it is just as well a discussion of this kind should take place.
The value of power, of course, is not to be minimized, but I think some hon. gentlemen make the mistake of thinking that a larger percentage of the cost of manufacturing is tied up in power than is actually the case. Experts tell us that in the United States, where the power is used in manufacturing, its cost averages only about 2i per cent of the entire cost of production; but that is an amount of course, not to be despised.
Some person has argued as if an agreement had been made between the government of Canada and some company in reference to the Carillon power. I think it is unfair to keep continually sending out to the public an intimation that such an agreement has been made. That agreement has not even been considered as yet; in fact, I have never yet read the application all through. So we are
perfectly free to discuss this matter just as though that application were not in. Just to illustrate, suppose I were to try and borrow S100 from my hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. LeSueur), and then went out and said he had leaned me that amount. He would be in a much better position than if he had actually loaned me that amount, and I ought not to make the suggestion that he had loaned me that money simply because I had asked for it. Now that is just the situation with respect to the Carillon pawer.
I am glad to say that our discussions are temperate in this matter. We in Ontario and a portion of Quebec, and in part of the west, depend largely for our coal upon the United States. Our anthracite coal has all to be brought in from the United States, and year after year when there is a scarcity we send our representatives over there to see that we get a square deal, and up to date the United States has given us a square deal in giving us our share of anthracite coal, even though they were pressed very hard on the other side of the line to shut off our supply of anthracite.
I might say that I am in hopes, and the government are in hopes, that before long we may be able to evolve a scheme which will relieve the situation to a large extent so far as anthracite coal is concerned, by the use of our own coal both in the east and west for the manufacture of coke. If that can be done, we shall be in a different position from what we are in to-day.
My hon. friend has discussed the off-peak. I am not sure that the off-peak, as we call it, is in a much different position from the other power. I know that my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) argued that out delicately, so as to convince the House that allowing the United States to have power from the off-peak did not mean anything. But this is the real reason, or at all events, one of the main reasons for not allowing our export of power, namely, that the export of our power allows industries on the other side of the line running on Canadian power to compete with industries in Canada. Now they can compete just as well with power from the off-peak load as they can with any other kind of power. It might possibly be that if they were not allowed to get that off-peak power, they would not be able to carry on their business to the same extent they do and compete with us here. So I just call attention to the fact that the off-peak power is almost in the same position as the other power.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Does the minister say
that any industry would ever commence on
Export oj Power

the basis of a contract merely for off-peak power?


George Perry Graham: Probably not, but they
might have to shut down if they did not have off-peak power, which would make quite a difference.


Arthur Meighen: That is just the point.


George Perry Graham: If the off-peak power
from Canada would enable an industry in some other country to get going and compete with our own industry, and that foreign industry could not compete if they did not have the off-peak power, then I submit that the off-peak power is in the same position as the other.
My leader the other night I think told the House that the government has not any desire and no intention to depart from the regulations now in existence which restrict the term of the export of power to twelve months, the licenses having to be renewed every twelve months. It is the duty of the government every year to ascertain that the power the new license asks for does not deprive Canada of certain power that Canada ought to have, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce now requires an affidavit when an application of this kind is made that the power is not required in this country, before he grants the yearly license. I admit at once that long term licenses might create a very difficult situation; but where there are short licenses, granted since the passage of the act in 1907 with the full knowledge that they might be recalled at any time, there could1 not be any serious complaint if these licenses were granted from year to year.
Now, let me come to another point, so far as the yearly licenses are concerned, although a great many people' say that is a mistaken idea in the case of Canada. Let me illustrate what I have in my mind. I am not saying this is my view at all, but it was placed before me the other day: If the license were extended for a number of years, covering a long period of time, the party to whom the power was exported would amortize the amount of his expenditure and if at the end of say twenty years he had to return all that power to Canada he would then have no investment so far as that expenditure was concerned; the profits from his business would have met all his expenditure. However, I am not going to discuss that question at the present time. That is a phase of the matter I give to the House for what it is worth. It is different in the case of a yearly license. If a license is given for twelve months, as has been the practice since 1907, the

party who receives the power-unless something unforseen happens or he gets notice to the contrary in advance-has a certain right to believe that year by year that license will be renewed. That is really what has been done. That is what has to be done if the contract is for 100 years. That has been done for years in the case of the Hydro Electric, and that is being done also in the case of the Cedar Rapidte power development. Giving a license year by year leads to the conclusion that, unless something unforseen happens, such yearly license will be granted an' nually.
Now I want to come to another point and that is the last part of this amendment. It does not say anything about the power that has been exported or is being exported now. I am not sure that I would go so far really with my hon. friend as to absolutely confine export only to new power. There may come a time in Canada-it may even be approaching-when we will have to serve notice-it may be some years in advance1-that we are going to gradually take back the power we are already exporting; and in a case of this kind I think we should not commit ourselves as this resolution says to the extent that there should be no exportation.


Arthur Meighen: It does not say that.


George Perry Graham: It intimates that.


Arthur Meighen: Oh no.


George Perry Graham: The resolution says that
we are not to export any new power. That means inferentially that we are not to interfere with something that is being exported,


Arthur Meighen: Oh no.


George Perry Graham: It excludes power that is being exported from any resolution we may pass as to non-exportation. That is a fair way to put it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is right.


George Perry Graham: Now I wish to refer to
the attitude of the hon. member for York-Sunfoury (Mr. Hanson). He is from New Brunswick. If we pass the last part of that resolution and adhere to it the provincial power development scheme in his own province, now partly accomplished will have to be stopped. In that province the provincial government has been working out the development of a provincially owned power scheme. That scheme, as I understand it, has been referred to the International Joint Commission, and they have given their consent to this particular development in international waters only on the understanding that a

Export of Power
certain part of that power will be exported to the United States.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, they have not done
that.


George Perry Graham: I am told they have. My own information to-day is that they have. Further than that I am told-I stand corrected but I would want to see the records- that a portion of this development will have to be used in the state of Maine-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Not of the first development.


George Perry Graham: Wait until I get through- and that if we adopt the resolution in its entirety in this House the province of New Brunswick will have to begin de novo as the lawyers say and ask the International Joint Commission to agree that power be developed without any reference to export. If that is the case the power cannot be developed because being international in character the United States would never agree to any other proposition, I just want to point out to my hon. friend and to the House that we must be careful how far we go with a resolution aimed at the export of power. The general principle may be all right but if we are going so far as to say that it never shall be possible, that it cannot be possible under any circumstances, that any new power developed 'in this country should be exported, then we may tie up some very laudable enterprises including the development under way in the province of New Brunswick which is not in the hands of a private concern at all but is a provincial enterprise respecting which the province has been trying for a long time to get a proper status so that- it could proceed with the necessary construction and development. I think we ought to be very careful as to how we proceed in tying up beyond peradventure the right of some province to export power. The province of New Brunswick is going into the export of power, and the province of Ontario is exporting power under certain conditions. Well, conditions might arise as a result of which the enterprise-I have already indicated the New Brunswick development and I think my information in regard to it is correct-might probably be killed if we tie ourselves down to a resolution like this irrespective of any conditions which might arise in the future. Of course, I can imagine the time might come when it might be the duty of any government then in power, no matter of what party, to consider the situation and to see that the power in Canada is retained to the people of the Dominion to whom it belongs; but to tie ourselves up absolutely and to say that under no circumstances whatever shall power be exported would be an altogether different thing. I think my hon. friend will see himself that it might be a mistake to make this resolution so far-reaching. Personally I have no objection at all to the first part of the resolution, but I think it would be a great mistake to insist that we should never export one single horse-power hereafter except off-peak load.


Thomas Langton Church: Will the minister clear up one point? Will he state what action has been taken touching the proposed development of 800,000 horse-power at Morrisburg? An application is before the Dominion government with respect to that development but I am not aware that any action has been taken in the mat.ter. Will the minister say whether the application has been refused, or what course will be pursued by the government in regard to it?


George Perry Graham: In reply to the hon. gentleman let me say that when the vote in connection with the St. Lawrence waterways project comes up, as it will come up in the miscellaneous estimates, will be the proper time to speak on this question. It will not be a short statement; I will be able to speak half an hour on it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want in the
first instance to deal with the last matter my hon. friend referred to, the New Brunswick situation. That is not a question affecting New Brunswick alone, but it really has to do with the question of the development of international power. I point out to my hon. friend that in so far as the development of international water-powers is concerned, we have only our allocated interest in them. Surely our friends to the south are entitled to their interest in those powers, export act or no export act. We all know that. Suppose New Brunswick carries out an international development on the border of the state of Maine, and the state of Maine is entitled to fifty per cent of the power, it is idle to say she cannot get her own fifty per cent, because we have an act here the purpose of which is to control the business of gentlemen engaged in the production of electric power in Canada for export to American customers. In this case it is theirs; the right is there, and there can be no difficulty about it. If my hon. friend thinks there is a difficulty about it, I am quite sure the mover and seconder of the resolution will be only too happy to accept any amendment that the hon. member may think is necessary in order to
Export of Power

give effect to a situation which I am sure is amply covered by things as they stand today.


George Perry Graham: This power is being developed on Canadian territory as I understand it. There could be no power exported unless the Department of Trade and Commerce in Canada gave a license for that export, and if that were to be done I think a special act would have to be passed to allow them to do it for a term of years.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have not the
act before me in answering my hon. friend's question, but I would have thought it elementary that that would refer to our power.


George Perry Graham: It does.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is to be
done here in New Brunswick is the development of water-power in which our friends to the south have an absolute interest, and if they (have an absolute interest they are entitled to that power as a matter of right, and their rights are not made subject to the stipulation that the government pass upon it as a question of license and refuse export if it pleases. It is a matter of right and contract between the parties. These are in effect treaties, and neither party has the slightest right to attempt to hamper either of the high contracting parties through licenses which are intended to look after traders. International law looks upon nations as just a little above and apart from traders and manufacturers who are covered by cases of this kind. It is not necessary to labour this question. If the government are serious in thinking there is the slightest doubt about it, we will accept any amendment which will make the point absolutely clear.
The next point to which my hon. friend refers is the question of off-peak power. He says it is just as bad to export off-peak power as it is firm power. I can hardly think my hon. friend is really serious in that. He may be able to point one phase of the situation, with his accustomed adroitness, and, not putting all his cards on the table, say to us that there is not any difference; but he knows very well that there are very important considerations of far greater moment than any considerations he has referred to on that point. He knows perfectly well, as we all know, that the real serious thing is the investment of money, the creation of large industry and the like, on the faith of this power exported, and my hon. friend admitted that no investment would be made merely on the basis of off-peak power. But I am anxious-and I

think itbe country is anxious-that we should have no little shadows in connection with this case, and no excuse why a resolution in favour of the retention and protection of one of our greatest assets should be set aside. Therefore we are perfectly content to strike out that off-peak power reference if my hon. friend does not like it, and let it go. If there be any objection to that exception let us remove it. It was put in simply because the attitude at any rate of hon. gentlemen in this corner of the House honestly interested in this question is absolutely reasonable, and in every single case where we can help an American interest without destroying a Canadian interest we want to do it. As we viewed the matter, we were not hurting our Canadian interests, and we were helping the American interests in connection (with that off-peak power. [DOT] What is the off-peak power? It is power which is exported under a special arrangement as a matter of fact with) the Hydro Commission and the American interests at Niagara. It is power which is absolutely interruptable at any time. It may be stopped on a day's notice, and the usefulness of it is perfectly plain in connection with the production of electricity at the falls. In connection with the Buffalo situation and in connection with the Niagara and Lookport situation we have composite production. We have very large hydro production and we have also production by steam. At the present time industry in the state of New York is still functioning, so that it requires off-peak power. The situation is such that coal is used in Buffalo for the purpose of producing that off-peak power, and interruptable off-peak power is being exported, for the purpose of saving our American friend's coal supply and is not hurting a single Canadian interest that I know of. But if my hon. friends think that this part of the resolution should be dropped, very well, we are content.
My hon. friend practically argues that this resolution is all right providing we can go on exporting. He argues that we run no risk if we can go on exporting. Suppose we test that situation as to whether we run no risk if we go on exporting. He points out that a license is merely a yearly license and further than that, under the express wording of the act, he can also point out that it may not even run for a year. The statute says the government may at any time terminate it; so that on paper we have even a stronger argument. There is notice under the act to every single contractor in American territory receiving Canadian power,* that not only is he dependent upon a yearly license, but that the govern-

Export oj Pov:er
ment can at any time cancel it. Just let us see how that works out. The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. LeSueur) this afternoon gave us some very good figures in connection with the relative cost of power installation, how much of it goes into the plant and how much into the distributing plant and the different factories that are run by it. The percentage, as he properly points out, is overwhelmingly weighty in connection with the districts where the power is used. We have had this export ant in force since 1907. We have the export, as the Minister of Railways and Canals points out, at Niagara; we have it at Massena and we have that act of 1907 which was passed I believe after the contract with the Ontario Power Company but which certainly antedates the other contract. We have had power shortages from time to time. No man in this House knows Jpetter than the Minister of Railways and Canals that there is a power shortage in eastern Ontario. He knows eastern Ontario is industrially starved for lack of electricity. He also knows that through that very territory, in which he naturally is interested and which he desires to help, there runs a line of the Cedar Rapids Company, delivering, if I remember rightly, 80,000 horse-power annually for use in the United States. Is the Minister of Railways and Canals without the slightest concern for his district? Not at all. We all know him to be a gentleman of the kindliest heart and the readiest sympathy; but there he has been sitting for years with the high tension wires of a company exporting electricity under a license which can ibe cancelled at * any time, and seeing his 'district practically lying dormant because it cannot get electricity in its manufacturing business.	.


George Perry Graham: The territory around
Brockville gets it from the Cedar Rapids Company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is the minister
satisfied with the quantity of power eastern Ontario is able to get?


George Perry Graham: I am not satisfied with
the price.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is he satisfied
with the quantity?


George Perry Graham: We have all we need at
the present time, I think.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend
has a very poor idea of the requirements of that district. Why, the Ontario commission, with the greatest difficulty in handling, were able to get a miserable 5,000 horsepower from Massena. Is the minister satisfied?


George Perry Graham: Not with the price.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is he satisfied
with the price they have to pay or the quantity?


George Perry Graham: I do not think they get
it from Massena. They get it from the Cedar Rapids Company.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They get it in connection with the export.


George Perry Graham: From the same company
that exports it.	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At any rate,
what is the minister going to do? Ottawa has already served notice that in a comparatively short time she will require 20,000 more horse-power. Where is it coming from? The real truth is-and every representative from eastern Ontario knows it-that eastern Ontario power demands have never been adequately met. My hon. friend nods his head. Then no further argument is necessary in connection with this question after that affirmation. With the demands of eastern Ontario never having been adequately met in connection with their electrical requirements, with 80,000 horse-power passing through their territory, it is perfectly clear that if my hon. friend thought he could have put the act into effect, stopped the export of that power and looked after his territory, he would have done so. Why has he not done it? He has not done if for the simple and plain reason that just as soon as we allow commitments to be made, just as soon as we have United States municipalities lit, waterworks run and industrial centres becoming dependent upon our power, my hon. friend would hesitate very long and gravely before he would stop the export of that power or any of it. That my submission is absolutely correct stands superabundantly clear because we have here the shortage admitted, we have a situation in eastern Ontario, as my hon. friend himself admits, where their power demands have never yet been properly met, and we also have running through that territory transmission wires carrying 80,000 horse-power out upon a license which, technically, can any day be cancelled.
It is idle to talk about the large water-powers of Canada having regard to our present situation. To-day in central and eastern Ontario we have an absolute power shortage. No man, I think, could speak better on the question than Sir Adam Beck, but I believe the facts are all present in the mind of the Minister of Railways and Canals.	If we
start to the west it is true that west of the Soo we have plenty of water-power, but coming down from the Soo, the east side of
Export of Power

lake Huron, the north side of lake Erie, is there a stream left on which the water-power has not been developed? Perhaps my hon. friend can tell me of one, but I do not know of any river of any size there that has not its development. Let us take, for example the development on lake Erie. There are the developments on the Severn, the Beaver, the Saugeen and the Grand rivers. Does my hon. friend know any others? If we consider the Niagara, we have our development there in such a position that next year it will be exhausted. At least that is the information we get and I do not think my hon. friend will deny it. On coming to lake Ontario, can my hon. friend point to any streams of any size that have not been harnessed? It is true we may have a few more water-powers up the Trent river in connection with the canal, but they do not amount to much, as I think my hon. friend would be one of the first to admit. The real truth is that, with two exceptions, central and eastern Ontario are without potential power supplies. The same also applies to the biggest industrial section of Quebec, namely, the Montreal district. Those two exceptions are the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa, with its tributaries, these and nothing else. Do not let us think we have power to throw away. We have not. As I have said, I do not think anyone can speak more clearly on the question than Sir Adam Beck. This is something he said in connection with his emphatic protest against the export of power, having particular regard to the Carillon proposal:
On other occasions I have drawn attention to the fact that the citizens of Ontario are now facing a most serious power shortage. Its gravity can scarcely be overstated. Within the Short period of fifteen years Ontario will need every horse-power that can be developed from its water powers and the markets will absorb this power as rapidly as it can be produced. The available Niagara power supply is being utilized as rapidly as the necessary equipment can be installed and, under present allotments of water, all available Niagara power will be utilized in 1926.
Iii eastern Ontario the need of greater supplies of electrical energy is even more urgent.
He goes on to say:
It may be recalled how, in 1911, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission sought to relieve this shortage through the contract it made with the New York and Ontario Power Company for the delivery of 15,000 horsepower from the St. Lawrence river. The commission's efforts, however, were blocked through the refusal of the Dominion authorities to grant permission for the necessary transmission lines to cross the government canal. Action by the commission in negotiating with the New York and Ontario Power Company-a company in the state of New York-was not due to insufficiency in the amount of power developed in the district from Canadian water-powers but to the fact that the power locally available was controlled by a foreign company.

Further on he says:
These transmission lines pass in Canada through territory bordering the St. Lawrence river that, industrially, is starved,-80,000 horse-power could supply a hundred or more of the smaller communities of Ontario.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but I should like to ask him this question. If the state of New York and the United States had taken the attitude embodied in this resolution would it have been possible for us to have got power from the United States? This power is all across the line.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We were trying to get power, but it would have been only a small moiety of what we are giving. We tried to get it but did not. He continues:
It was only after very considerable effort and after overcoming many difficulties that the Hydro-Electric Power Commission was able to effect an arrangement with the foreign company controlling the Canadian exported power, whereby the commission could obtain a maximum supply of but 5,000 horse-power of firm power, with an additional 2,500 horse-power under certain optional limitations. Such quantities are insignificant as contrasted with present and future needs. Only recently the commission received an application from the city of Ottawa for an additional supply of 20,000 horse-power of electrical energy to commence in 1928. The logical and only available sources of supply for such demands are the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Speaker, at the time of adjournment I was talking about the electrical power shortage in Ontario, and I had been referring quite extensively to Sir Adam Beck. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I make any references to that gentleman with a great deal of confidence. He has devoted his life and broken down his health in the struggle to insure cheap and plentiful hydro-electric power to the people of his province, and I think that the protest he has made on this particular occasion is but a further evidence of his public spirit. No one can very well doubt Sir Adam Beck's testimony not only having regard to the man himself, but also to the facts. No one can be so foolish as to suggest that there is not a real shortage of power when at the present moment an appropriation of ten million dollars is being made for the purpose of generating power by steam in a province that ought to have access to these powers and the benefit of their full and complete development. Why Mr. Speaker, we have heard statements made by hon. gentle-

Export of Power
men particularly interested in the district of Carillon with respect to the necessity of work being provided for the people in the locality. I would point out to the House that last year an application was made by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission for leave to develop this very Carillon site-not for the purpose of exportation, but for the benefit of Canadian consumers. So far that application simply stands.
In this particular case we have not only a common interest, but a declared common interest between the central provinces-Ontario and Quebec. Their protests against the exportation of this power are united, and are voiced by those best entitled to speak-by the premier of each province and by those interested in the production of electricity, the power companies on the one hand in Quebec and Sir Adam Beck on the other hand in Ontario-all taking a common Canadian stand. Their interests are indeed common. For example, both provinces are directly interested in the production of paper. Neither province can make any success in that production without cheap and plentiful power. In order to turn out one ton of paper every twenty-four hours a supply of 100 horse-power of electricity is needed; and none of us think that the development of our wood pulp resources is at an end. Yes, our interests are common. The metallurgical mine-s of Ontario require a good deal of electricity in their development. Those well posted say that the mining development of Ontario has only commenced, yet with that commencement to-day we are using 125,000 horse-power. Quebec has similar opportunities, she is expecting to rival Ontario's mining development and will require a great deal of electrical energy for the purpose. Indeed, without electrical power we might just as well abandon any thought of the successful exploitation of our northern mines. To get coal up there on the present scale of costs and freight rates would be absolutely prohibitive and would effectively retard the development of any but the very richest deposits. I repeat, both provinces are united in their protests. Those protests surely are well founded; their interests are in jeopardy. The door should be locked and bolted, and then doubly locked and bolted again to prevent the exportation of this precious Carillon water-power.
There is a great deal behind this Carillon proposition. Early in 1923 the associated industries of New England took up the question of their power resources and the possibility of getting power. A committee was appointed, expert engineers were engaged, and
the work put in hand. A very excellent report was got in 1924, a report which covers pretty fully all the waterqrowers of Quebec and the remaining water-powers of Ontario, because that investigating committee very wisely thought the only water^powers that Ontario had left were the water-powers of the St. Lawrence, and of the Ottawa and its tributaries. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have got within this report our water-powers catalogued up to a distance of some 475 miles. There is a great deal behind this application. If this
400,000	horse-power by any unfortunate action gets across the line, there will be an annual saving in New England territory of approximately $4,500,000. The prize is great, and the efforts are strong, and they are still going on; they are going on notwithstanding everything that took place in the House on this question not so very long ago. Why, it is only last week that the bonds of the old company were purchased, and so far as I can find out, were purchased at a slight premium, at 102, I think, but I am not definite on that point. But the bonds were purchased, and the pressure still goes on. Those behind the movement still think they have such arguments as yet undisclosed as will enable them to force the hand of the government.
I referred to this report. It is an interesting report. It is very interesting in that it shows us what a great asset we have in connection with our water-powers. It shows us again what a tremendously important thing electricity is, what a tremendous development there is for electricity, even in territory like the territory of the New England states, where but a very small percentage of the electricity produced is produced from water, where practically all the electricity is produced by fuel-burning plants.
There is confirmation in this report of what has been said on the question of the water-powers that are still available, those little powers here and there which in the total amount to a tremendous quantity, if you like, but which are non-existent for practical purposes. I commend this report to the very careful study of the government. If they study it, and really appreciate it, there will be no more export of electricity from Canada.
This report points out at page 99 how very small the power is which New England obtains, or can obtain, from her own water-powers, as compared with her demands, which are met by fuel-burning plants, and proceeds as follows:
The greater part of the undeveloped water power in New England must wait for the growth of local demand
Export oj Power

for power because in most cases the cost of development would be too great to justify the added cost of transmission to different centres of demand. Even if the 'local restrictions on the taking of power from Maine were removed,-
I might, interject here that Maine has an absolute embargo on the exportation of power from that state to any other state:
-the high cost of development and transmission would prevent the exportation of a large proportion of this power.
That is just exactly the position of a very large number of the water-powers to which reference has been made by hon. gentlemen who were mistaken enough to justify in this House the exportation of Carillon power, powers which they referred to as powers to which Canada can look for her future supply. The New England states are not so foolish as to think that powers of such a character are of any practical and immediate use whatever.
The report, after dealing with their own local powers, proceeds to deal with the Canadian situation, and there is a map in here which I would again draw to the government's attention, map No. 17, which illustrates the Canadian situation. It shows the available water-powers. They show the available water-powers in On'ario, those in the St. Lawrence, and the Ottawa, with its tributaries. They throw the St. Lawrence to one side on account of international difficulties and delays, and Carillon is shown as being the most convenient power for them. Carillon is credited on this map with an available development of
220,000	horse-power, or 440.000 horse-power, at 50 per cent load factor. Eight other pcwer sites on the Ottawa or its tributaries, the Gatineau and the Lievre, are shown up to a distance from Boston of 475 miles as also available, as well a the sites on the St. Frances, the St. Maurice and the Saguenay rivers.
This report, the government will be interested in knowing, recommends the commencement of the utilization of Canadian waterpower for the purpose of the New England states, recommends commencing with power derived from the smaller sites on the Ottawa, St. Maurice and Saugenay rivers, that is smaller as compared to- the larger sites on the St. Lawrence, which is tied up for the present.
The report also is very interesting in showing just what can 'be done with power, and where power would go to. It is interesting also as showing how important electricity is, and how much is used notwithstanding the high cost of coal. Why, Mr. Speaker, the delivered cost to the consumers on (he average there is 3.4 cents per kilowatt hour.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
electricity developed from coal?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes. my hon. friend will realize that is a very high rate. He will also find from this report that that is produced from coal at $8 per ton.
The report also points out, just as showing the growth and importance of this development, that the output of the central station power plants in the New England states in 1915 was 2,058.220 000 K.W.H., but in 1923 the estimate was 4,200,000,000 K.W.H. There is a great industrial development and a great deal of electrical power used in those states outside the central power stations, and in order to get a true picture we have to add the power produced at the industrial plants to the power produced at the central power plants. Adding those figures the total produced in 1915 was 6,798,000,000 K.W.H. In 1923, the estimated production was 8,000,000 -000 K.W.H. The government will find that reference at page 72 of the report. There is another thing that is very significant in connection with the report: It is an industrial report. It is a report 'by which this investigation is going into the question of seeing- as every true American ought to-just what is the best thing that could be done for his territory, just how he can get the cheapest power, just how he can do everything to retain business in the New England states as against the competition from the southern states with cheaper labour. The report makes a very good survey of the whole situation, and gives the growth of the installed horsepower in different industries. I would refer the government to plate number 5, at page 47, which gives the total reported horse-power installation capacity in the New England textile industries in which so many of our French Canadian friends are now working. In 1900 the installed horse-power was 600,000, and in 1922 it was 1,250,000. There we have the industry doubled, and a little more than doubled, in that time. Hon. gentlemen have an idea that we practically have a monopoly of the production of paper. Well, we might practically have one; but with cheap Canadian raw material the paper mills of the New England states, do pretty well. How much better they would do if this attempt to harness Carillon power in their interest had been successful, and they also had cheap Canadian power. As it is, New England's output for 1922 was 6.228 tons of paper, 5,160 tons of pulp, and 1,555 tons of paper 'board, and so on. Oh yes, cheap Canadian power would be

Export of Power
of immense benefit to this particular interest. The figures I have given form its daily output. The requirements of the boot and shoe industry, of rubber goods, leather, and other industries are also set out-all the different activities in which when we are functioning here, our co-patriots from Quebec can work at home, and when they are not functioning here in which they work on the other side of the line. The details of these industries are all set out, and the government will find this information very interesting reading. They will find a very interesting calculation also. They will find that plate 18, page 132, furnishes a very interesting table in connection with population. It is rather an amazing table. If there are any people who cannot fairly be charged with race suicide, one would think it is our people of Quebec attached as they are to home and family. They have one of the best birth rates, if not the best, in the world; their birth rate is infinitely higher than the birth rate of the New England states.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Henry Lumley Drayton: An hon. gentleman says "hear, hear." He is right. But let us look at the sad picture painted, not as has beeji said from government benches from time to time by a politician out of office, but by an outside observer seeing to serve his own country and telling the truth as he sees it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well the figures will be loud enough I should tlhink for anyone having the slightest interest at least in the province of Quebec. With respect to the figures I have to give there is a map made, and the curve is drawn on it. It is plate 18 which compares the growth of population in the province of Quebec with the growth of population in southern industrial New England. It compares Quebec with the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island. By these investigators the population of Quebec in 1855 is given as 1,400 000. These figures are taken from the plate referred to. They may be approximations, but they are practically correct. Hon. gentlemen will understand what I mean by that is, that when you are reading from a map it is rather hard to scale the figures exactly. However, they are approximately correct. In 1920 the population of Quebec is given as approximately 2,325,000, an increase of 66.07 per cent. As against these figures these industrial states- where there is a comparatively low birth rate percentage as compared with Quebec-had
in 1885 a population of 3,000,000, and in 1920 a population of over 5,800,000, kn increase of 93.33 per cent. Is there any question as to what the building up of the industries immediately to the south of Quebec is doing to that province? Is any hon. gentleman really serious wthen he suggests that the energy developed from the water-powers of Quebec should be exported for the purpose of strengthening the lure that is already so strong? These figures down to 1920 are had enough, but the situation which they present is nothing to the situation as it is to-day. Hon. gentlemen know that the exodus which the figures indicate has been multiplied since; our own figures show it. And yet there is a proposition here that something ought to be done which will enable the industry to the south to work still cheaper than the industry to the north and attract still more of our people. Those who support the idea of an exportation of power to-day are not content with seeing our pulpwood and other raw material taken out of this country; they also want to fortify that exportation with the exportation of the one thing in which the Canadian still has an advantage.


Mr. ETHIER:: What about the combine?


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend talks about combine. Combine has nothing to do with it. An application has been sent to the government, but not acted upon, under which that power would be developed for the benefit of the people in the district of the valley. My hon. friend is against it. He is in favour of this proposition which takes away from the people of this country power which is urgently needed.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Not at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend says not at all. If he had been here this afternoon he would have heard the admission from the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) that eastern Ontario never had a proper supply of power. We all know that eastern Ontario has been beggared in her industrial development. Does my hon. friend rejoice in that fact? We also know that an application for development is on file, and that the Ontario commission will proceed tomorrow, if they get a chance, with the development of the Carillon power, just so that eastern Canada can live, so that the people in eastern Ontario may perhaps, as they ought to, enjoy power as has western Ontario. There is great danger, Mr. Speaker, that irreparable injury may be done to Canada unless in some way or another we
Export oj Power

are protected. I look upon this resolution as something in the best interests of the government, and I am absolutely sincere when I say that. This campaign is no new thing and it has been going on, not for weeks, but for months. Indeed it is a matter of years and it is ready now. Here is the report and here is the market, and there are the bankers, the great financial house in Boston of Harris, Forbes & Co; interested as they are in maintaining the commercial interests of the industries of the Neiw England states. There is something ahead. There is $4,500,000 to be saved if this thing can be got and taken away at the expensed Canada. It is in the very best interests of the government that this resolution be adopted, and that this pressure should be removed from them. This pressure is all the more dangerous, if the Prime Minister knows nothing about it, although it goes on for a length of time. It has been going on now for a long time-these revised drafts, bearing on their faces the evidence of careful preparation. It is absolutely in the interests of the government and everybody else that the resolution should pass as it stands. It is in the interests of Canada that this question should be settled. I hope the government will take this resolution in the spirit in which it is offered. It is not intended as a want of confidence motion, but they can turn it into that if they so desire. We in Ontario as well as our friends in Quebec are deeply interested in this question. We want to see Canada left with a plentiful supply of electric power for the development of her natural resources, for the development of our paper and pulp industry and for a greater development of the yet unknown Eldorado of the north in both of these provinces, which is only possible with cheap and plentiful power. I therefore support the motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: I have listened attentively to
the discussion of this important subject for many hours, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot understand the attitude of my hon. friends to your left. I do not know what shivers have taken hold of them in the past two years. They seem to be embarrassed on account of the extra powers we may develop in this country in connection with our hydroelectric. In all the provinces of the Dominion we have power to develop, and no doubt in many provinces there will be a surplus of power that should be sold somewhere outside of our own country. For instance, we are developing our natural resources in many provinces as well as we possibly can. I ask my hon. friends from the prairie provinces;

if they had no market for their produce outside of Canada, what would they do with the extra quantity of wheat that they produce? The same thing applies to the electric power development of this country. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has spoken very openly and1 clearly on the subject, and I have listened to him with great attention. He has alluded to the province of New Brunswick as did the hon. member for Yorlc-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson), and I wish to speak in reference to the latter province. In that province we have one of the largest water-powers of the Maritime provinces. Its development is required in order that our province should go ahead. Recently application for the development of the Grand falls was made to the province of New Brunswick, and a meeting was held in Montreal last Friday and Saturday in connection with this matter. I hold in my hand the Gazette, published in Montreal, in which appears a report of the decision at the meeting of the International Joint Commission. The report reads as follows:
The chairman, C. A. Magrath, entrusted to Sir WiJliam Hearst the task of issuing a statement.
Here is the statement:
The commission has granted an order of approval of tho plans submitted by the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of New Brunswick for the development of power at Grand Falls, N.B., subject to a number of terms and conditions with reference to the compensation of all parties-
I might say en passant, that this is in connection with the shore rights along the St. John river. The report proceeds:
-sustaining damages, or whose property has been in any way taken or injured in connection with the development.
The United States claimed at first that they had a sovereign ri^ht in connection with this development on account of their international situation. After a long debate and after the argument made by the attorney representing Canada at that last meeting the United States gave up the idea of their sovereign rights, and in order to show that they had no rights at all the Canadian attorney established and proved to the representative of the United States that as soon as the shore rights on the American side were purchased by the New Brunswick Hydro Electric Commission the United States would no longer have any right in connection with this development.
In order to show the House that the Americans have no longer any rights, I may say that they have asked, not as a compensation, not under their sovereign right, but just as a compromise, that the New Brunswick Electric Company should sell them 2,000 horse-power

Export oj Power
and they would pay for it just the same amount as would be paid by a Canadian consumer. The 2,000 horse-power does not represent the rights of the Americans as far as the international boundary is concerned. The international boundary on each side of the river covers a distance of seventy miles. The Americans are claiming only 2,000 horsepower, whereas we are going to develop between 50,000 and 75,000 horse-power. They do not claim even one-fifth of their rights according to the agreement which I have just read. This water-power is developed on Canadian soil entirely, and according to the engineers the dam that will be built will allow the water to flow back for a distance of only fourteen miles, that is fourteen miles out of a distance of seventy miles as far as the international boundary is concerned. Our American friends are willing and ready to give us what we are entitled to. In order to make this development a success, while a certain quantity of this power will be needed to fill our requirements at home, we feel that we are going to develop more than we need at home, and for that reason we want to have the power, not under the Dominion government, but under our provincial rights, to sell outside the extra power that we shall have on hand.
Therefore, I would suggest that it would be very apropos for the House to arrive at this conclusion, that the export of hydro-electric power from Canada should be permitted only on yearly license, and that hereafter no license for export of power beyond that already granted should be issued except with the concurrence of the province or provinces in which it is proposed to develop such power. That means that no power should be exported out of any province by the Dominion without the consent of the province where the power is developed. Let me appeal to my hon. friends from the west. They are just about to develop their provincial water-powers, and I remember not very long ago in the Railway committee seeing on two occasions moving pictures showing the great water-powers about to be developed in Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia. I ask my hon. friends from the west:	When
you start to develop your power and you have a surplus after providing for all your industries, farmers, merchants and the rest of your inhabitants, what are you going to do with your surplus? Are you going to be allowed to keep that at home without deriving any revenue from it? Are you going to let the government say:	No, we will not allow you
to export any of that power? You want to 273	[DOT]
control that privilege. As long as a province has the right to export its own power, there is no danger of its going too far in that direction.


Edward Joseph Garland: Who is
giving the provinces this right?


Pius Michaud: They have the right
actually to develop their own power.


Edward Joseph Garland: But to
refuse to export it?


Pius Michaud: If the proposition of
the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Le-Sueur) passes in this House, no power will be allowed to be exported according to the laws of the Dominion of Canada. If I understand his proposition rightly, he is going to stop any further exportation of hydroelectric power from this Dominion into the United States or anywhere else. My contention is that we should not allow the Dominion to control our provincial rights in that regard. The little province of New Brunswick is entering upon a large expenditure in order to develop a water-power which is one of the biggest in the Maritime provinces, and it would be unfortunate for us, after having incurred so much expense, if we were to be deprived of our rights. Already we have spent a great deal of money, already we are about to issue bonds, and if this resolution carries New Brunswick will be prevented from going on with this development and from issuing its bonds, because none of our financial companies will dare to advance us any money when the Dominion government is to control our rights and privileges. I hope I have made myself clear. If this proposition goes through, it means that my province will no longer be able to develop this great water-power. It means that all our ambitions, our undertakings, will come to nothing, and I shall be one of those who will be very sorry to know to-night, after this vote, that our provincial rights have been taken away from us at the request of my hon, friends to your left.
Mr. HERBERT 'MARLER (St. Lawrenice-St. George): Mr. Speaker, what I have to say apropos olf this resolution imay be said in a very few worlds. I regret I was not present to hear all the remarks which the hon. member for West Lamlbton (Mr. LeSueur) made on this subject. I am sure in this case he, in his usual! fashion, placed this proposal before the House in an extremely clear and fair manner. I have, however, heal'd the greater part of the other discussion which has 'taken place relative to this matter. No one can deny for a

Export oj Power

moment that our water-powers are one of the great natural resources of Canada. It does not need any very vivid stretch of the imagination to realize that some day we shall likely require for use in Canada substantially all the water-powers which we have developed and undeveloped at the present time. But being one of the great natural resources of this Dominion, those water-ipowers which are undeveloped now should be utilized either in the development of Canada or for such purposes otherwise in the sole interest of Canada itself. In other words, although I believe the water-powers undeveloped at the present time will eventually be needed for use in Canada alone, and for that reason it seems it would be an extremely unwise thing to export any (of that power whatsoever, yet at the same time it does not seem to me entirely wise or in the greatest interest of Canada immediately to shuit the door and say that we shall never at any time export any of those water^powers, because the occasion (might arise-and we do not know when it might arise; we cannot even say whether it ever will arise-when it might become vitally necessary, in the interest of this country for bargaining purposes or for other reasons, to utilize certain of these water-powers in procuring some other greater advantage for Canada. It seems to me therefore unwise for us in this House to-day to shut the door definitely and absolutely for all time and say that we shall never export water power.
My hon. friend from West York this evening has emphasized the various necessities for the water-powers of the Dominion. He has read extracts from various reports and has placed the situation before the House in a very lucid and fair manner. But I do not think that there are many of us who needed to be told all that that hon. gentleman has told us. We realize all these facts to the full. We realize on this side of the House just as much and indeed more than hon. gentlemen realize opposite the great importance of doing every thing possible to develop this Country to its very fullest extent; and I do not think that hon. gentlemen opposite can point to us and say that we do not desire to preserve for use in the development of the Dominion our water powers or any other natural resources which are in the country. The preservation and use of our natural resources has at all times to this government been a matter of the greatest concern, and I have no reason to believe that this policy will 'be' departed from in any respect so far as our water-powers are concerned. It is true that there are a number of undeveloped water powers in this country

and in this vicinity. In the Ottawa valley there is undeveloped water-power to the extent of at least 350,000 horse-power; while on the Rouge river there is power to the extent of over 20,000 horse-power, on the Nation over 20,000 horse-power, on the Lievre over 80,000, and on the Gatineau over 150,000 horse-power, all undeveloped. The casual observer might ask, what is the use in allowing all this water-power to go to waste? I do not follow that theory at all. I have no hesitation in declaring that I am not in favour of the export of water-power except in the case of some actual necessity which is shown to be of distinct benefit and advantage to this country, nor am I in favour on the other hand of absolutely closing the door forever against such export, and taking the stand that we should never under any circumstances permit the export of water-power.


Arthur Meighen: If parliament closes the door cannot parliament open it again, should the contingency ever arise?


Mr. MARLER:: Parliament is expressing
an opinion at the present time, and there is no occasion so far as I can see for parliament to come to any other decision than that our water-powers should be used for the general advantage of the nation. I see no reason why we should at the present time irrevocably decide against the export of water-power at any time should it be deemed advisable but at the same time I say definitely that at the moment I would close the door not only against the export of water-power on a
9 p.m. one year lease, as is contemplated by this resolution, but also -against the export of off-peak power. There is no reason before the House or the country just now why we should export any power at all, whether it b'e off-peak or otherwise.
My hon. friend for Restigouche and Mada-waska (Mr. Michaud), properly placed before the House very largely the same opinion I had intended stating myself. The export of power, I take it, is governed 'by the federal laws, while the utilization of that power is governed largely if not entirely by the respective provinces. In other words, the Dominion exercises in this matter, as it does in regard to many other matters, a general supervision, while the provinces exercise a specific supervision over such matters as come particularly witihin their own purview or within their borders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the hon. gentleman
suggest that the provinces have any constitutional power with respect to the export of water-power?

Export oj Power


Herbert Meredith Marler: I am not suggesting that.
I shall be glad if the hon. member will correct me; but as I understand the law, the export of water-power is not within the jurisdiction of the provinces, even if in any case that power is entirely within the province, without the consent of the Dominion. That is the law on the subject. I was proceeding to say that while the Dominion exercises a general supervision over the export of power, yet the provinces themselves control the question as to what shall be developed within their own borders-what their specific requirements may be,-whether or not the industries which require development should be assisted, and in the same way whether it is in their interest to develop water-powers, to refuse export or to export.	-
The views of my own province on this subject are well known in this House, and I adhere to those views. Without any hesitation whatever I say that so far as the province of Quebec is concerned the attitude is that water-power should not be exported; and I am in accord with the government of that province in that regard. But I do not agree with the terms of this resolution, that there should be no export of water-power except as regards off-peak power. I go further than that and say that without the consent of the province, wherein there may be any development, no water-power whatsoever should be exported. I do not think that anything could be clearer than that; I do not think that any opinion Could be more honestly expressed in this House than the attitude I have stated on my own account as to whether power should be exported or not. Exportation does not rest with the province as a matter of law, although it may be a question of expediency with the province as to whether or not a certain thing should be done in the interests of that province. A grave question must be faced in connection with many inter-provincial water-powers, and that is as to whether one particular province or another owns a certain water-power. And that urges me to express the view that it is for the provinces to act in co-operation with the government of the Dominion and vice versa with a view to deciding whether it is wise or not in any given case to export water-power. When such a question comes up for consideration, then I think is the proper time for a decision to be reached in a matter of this description.


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should be sorry if anything in this debate would misrepresent the attitude of the province of New Brunswick with regard to 273i
water-power development. It is true, as my hon. friend from Restigouche and Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) was saying, that the province is about to embark upon a very large expenditure for this purpose. I do not think that the people of New Brunswick wish to add very largely to their capital debt merely for the purpose of getting back a bare return upon the outlay by the sale of power to a foreign country for the upbuilding of industries there rather than within the limits of the province itself. I think New Brunswick can be described as a unit in desiring the fullest and most extensive development of water-power within its limits for which a market can be found. Now, what must that market be? The development of our wood resources principally, to a minor extent the application of electricity to farm purposes, and incidentally, of course, the lighting of cities, towns and villages. The export of power from New Brunswick would mean that for every unit exported a precisely similar development would be sustained in the state of Maine in competition with the development of our own natural resources. No New Brunswicker can want that. What we do want is this development within our own territory. It is the one opportunity that we have. I feel that the people of New Brunswick will stand by me in regretting any suggestion that we are simiply going into the development of water-power for the purpose of exporting it and building up a foreign country at the expense of our own resources.
Now, I have no fear that this amendment in any way touches the situation of New Brunswick. It does not. As my hon. friend from Restigouche and Madawaska has explained, the International Joint Commission has approved of an arrangement which has been made. They declined, and I am very sorry that they declined, to enter into a discussion and ultimate decision of the question as to whether or not the state of Maine had any right to demand a portion of this power. As a matter of fact it is not really the international boundary that is in question; there are very large areas of the watershed within the state of Maine, without the utilization of which it would be impossible to develop the project at Grand Falls to its ultimate capacity. The province of New Brunswick has no right to go into the state of Maine and demand to be allowed to place dams there and pen back that water; and the state of Maine, in my judgment, has no right to say that the consideration for so doing shall be the sharing of the power. But the action
Export oj Power

of the International Joint Commission has virtually treated it as such, and I notice that an arrangement has been completed for the export of about 2,000 horse-power to the state of Maine, which has accepted this as an equivalent to what it claims as its proportion. It bases that not at all on the figures given by my hon. friend, but on the view that it would be entitled to one-sixteenth of the power produced, which it estimates at about 50,000 horse-power. An arrangement has been made that a certain concern in the state of Maine shall receive this 2,000 horse-power annually.
The International Joint Commission having approved of that arrangement, we must remember that the commission acts entirely under a treaty to which this country, as part of the empire,, is a party. It has the force and effect that all treaties have by section 132 of the British North America Act, which provides that:
The parliament and government of Canada shall have all powers necessary or proper for performing the obligations of Canada or of any province thereof as part of the British Empire towards foreign countries arising under treaties between the empire and such foreign countries.
Therefore the 2,000 horse-power that will go out under this arrangement from the province of New Brunswick will go out not as an export controllable by this parliament, but as a fulfilment of a decision or as approval by a body which has sovereignty in the matter, that is the International Joint Commission, based upon a treaty, which treaty must be supported by any legislation that is necessary, and that legislation must be enacted by this parliament. We are obligated by the British North America Act to do it. So if legislation to the fullest extent were to be based upon this amendment, it would not affect the arrangement that has been made with regard to New Brunswick, or any other arrangement which would be imposed as part of a bargain approved by the International Joint Commission.
Further than that I do not feel any special interest in the question, except on the general ground that what we can utilize for our own development should be utilized here and not sent out of the country to compete with us. It is no way to build up our own country. Hon. gentlemen may view the matter in any way they like, but it is morally impossible to continue the practice of export over a long series of years and then deny the people who have been getting the benefit of the exported power the right to continue it. It is all very well to say that they understand you will put an end to it. It is not the way that one decent

neighbour would act towards another decent neighbour who had done him no harm, and countries must be controlled by the same principles that would apply to citizens. Therefore before any power is exported and rights to it acquired, it is only fair I think for us to say to our neighbour, "Look here, we are going to need all this for ourselves, and we are not going to increase the quantity that you now get," That is the principle we should apply. But every man within hearing of my voice, every man who is interested in the question, knows there is something more immediate, something more insistent than that. We know that it is only by the advocacy of this principle at this time that a willing government is being rendered afraid to take a step which will be disastrous to Canada.


Thomas Langton Church: horse-power. That contract has twenty-five years yet to run. It had three twenty-year renewal terms, but that provision has been abrogated 'by the government of the province. I maintain that we should stop this exportation and go no further; otherwise we shall not have sufficient power to supply our own towns, cities and rural communities in Ontario.
Although the aggregate load distributed to the rural dwellers is, and must always be, but a relatively small proportion of the total energy distributed by the "hydro", its influence upon the economic life of the province of Ontario will doubtless be far-reaching and is already a factor of importance. Agriculture still ranks as the most important of our industries and in these days with farm labour scarce and expensive, anything that takes its place ^ is a great help to the farmer, for, as is universally ackowledged, upon him, in the last analysis, rest the prosperity and welfare of the community. Hitherto the rural resident has thought chiefly of electrical service in connection with lighting, but his greater need is for convenient power. The appliances that are so helpful to the city dweller, such as washing-machines, irons, fans, etc., are of even greater help to the farmer's wife; but, in addition, the farmer can make use of a large number of devices which are even more labour-saving than those used in the city, such, for example, as water-pumps, cream-separators, churns and milking-machines which can be all operated by quite small motors. Where electrical service of larger capacity can economically be installed, additional machinery, such as buzz and drag-saws, choppers, root-pulpers, ensilage-cutting boxes and threshers, for which the farmer usually employs auxiliary power, can also be operated electrically.
I should like to find out from the government what has been done with the Ontario government's application to develop and distribute power on the St. Lawrence at Morris-burg. The application of the hydro has been before the Dominion government for two years. Has it been refused? I may say that this is a very important problem for the people of Ontario, because you have only two sources of power supply left in eastern Ontario, namely, the St. Lawrence and the Ottawa rivers. As far as the eastern portion of the province is concerned there is an abundant supply of potential water-power to be obtained from the river at Morrisburg and the Long Sau'lt rapids. This is an international portion of the St. Lawrence river. The province of Ontario owns 130 per cent interest in that power, amounting to 800,000 horse-power. To sum up: Ontario gave to

Adam Beck the chief stewardship of $160,000,000 invested in hydro on behalf of 2,200,000 shares in Hydro properties. The results that Adam Beck achieved by his stewardship of Hydro are set down in the following statement.
_ 1- Every dollar of the $160,000,000 Hydro investment is earning interest and sinking fund.
2.	Hydro investment saved Ontario from a coal famine that would have bankrupted the province in war time.
3.	Hydro investment saved 2,200,000 shareholders over $75,000,000 in reduced coal, light and power bills.
4.	Hydro investment saved Ontario over $100,000,000 on coal prices, which would have gone to $30 per ton in war time but for the Hydro investment that gave Ontario the equivalent of 3,000,000 tons of United States coal per annum.
The force in the national life of Canada that most truly proved itself Liberal in the best sense and Progressive in the best sense of those two much abused words, Liberal and Progressive, is the force represented by the Hydro Conservatives in Ontario. The triumphs achieved by the Hydro Conservatives of Ontario under the leadership of Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck have cut Ontario's coal consumption in half, and cut 75 per cent off Ontario's light and power bills.
They seek to get 300,000 horse-power from this Carillon development and export it to the United States, and once the power is exported to the United States as in the case of the Ontario Power Company and the Niagara Lockport Company it is gone forever. Power once gone is gone for all time to come; once exported it is always exported1. That is a principle that is true in hydro development here, and all the world over. In the case of the Niagara Lockport Company the power exported is used by the American municipalities for commercial and domestic lighting of all kinds. Look at the trouble you have got into over the Chicago diversion of water. Water has been taken illegally as not intended by the people of this country. Most of the courts and the press and the people say it has been "stolen." They have taken that water at the rate of 10,000 second-feet, equivalent in horse-power to 35 million dollars a year. That is the equivalent of the electrical energy from the water which has been illegally taken. If you have had international trouble over the water that has been wrongfully taken at Chicago, what kind of trouble will you have if the power derived from these waters is exported forever? Certain legal questions have arisen which no doubt will go

Export of Power
to the Privy Council, because all that Canada is interested in is the surface water for navigation jjurposes, For example, at Port Col-borne, the federal government takes all it needs for the purpose of navigation and the water required for the Welland canal. The surplus waters, subject to the rights of navigation belong to the province of Ontario. Half of the Niagara river subject to navigation belongs to the province. The province of Ontario owns the bed of the river halfway out, and the banks and rapids of the Niagara river. That is its physical property and the interest it has in those waters. I think the Privy Council, if a specific case went to it, would so decide, but the question of federal export tax and license is very doubtful, Mr. Speaker.
An international question has arisen, not only from the international standpoint I have referred to, but also from the legal side, as to what international rights the United States and Canada have in those boundary waters, and secondly what rights the provinces have in these navigable waters.	Some of the
license rights claimed, I contended about a month ago, especially in the Niagara district, are illegal and it is very doubtful if the Dominion has the power, although the Minister of Justice said that his department had given its opinion that the export tax was intra vires.
I will support the amendment because in my opinion the day for the further export of power and any extension of it is gone. I agree with the second clause of the resolution that no license should be issued beyond those which have been issued, but I do not agree with the proviso which says "except for off-peak power."
There is no such thing as cheap power exported as off-peak load power. Any electrical engineer will tell you that. In the case of power exported to Lewiston and Lockport, which is exported and distributed by the Niagara-Lockport Company you cannot turn off the power during peak hours. You cannot shut off the power exported in the industries on the streets of Lockport at peak hours. They require to have that power available for twenty-four hours a day for 365 days in the year. They cannot go behind that contract for 60,000 horse-power which has twenty-five years yet to run at S12.35 per horsepower. The time has come now to hearken to the warning and adopt a proper policy in this connection. It is said they may cut off yur coal supplies, but there are two sides to that question. That matter was discussed in this House a short time ago. Great Britain
seeks at present a market for her surplus coal. There is an overproduction there and [DOT] they have an accumulation of 10 million tons of coal which should be brought to Canada, and we should obtain all our coal supplies from countries under the British flag. We need not pay attention when they say they would cut off our coal supply, because there are two sides to it. It is deplorable to go to Lewiston, continue on up the river and see the connected chain of factories from Lewiston all the way to Niagara Falls and to Buffalo. Why are those factories there? That is a concrete example of the futility of the policy of exporting power. All those factories are linked up there and why? Because of the generous, magnanimous and foolish policy of the government in exporting power from Ontario to the Niagara and Lockport district. Starting on the Canadian side from the village of Queenston what have we? Queenston is situated right opposite Lewiston, but you can go to Queenston right up to the falls and on to Fort Erie and hardly see an industry. There is hardly an industry along that river front except at the falls, Chippewa and Bridgebury, all the way up to Fort Erie. Why? The industries are mostly on the other side because of the export policy. Further on, up to the city of Buffalo what have we got, as a result of the policy of exporting hard grain and power. We find twenty-eight elevators have been built in Buffalo and are there to-day, and in the Toronto Globe we will see a reference to one of the largest companies in Canada, the Maple Leaf Milling Company, conducted by Mr. D. A. Campbell, with head offices iin the Dominion Bank building. The Globe says:
It is interesting to note that overtures have been made to induce Maple Leaf to establish a mill at Buffalo.	_
And why? Because of this foolish policy in Canada of exporting hard grain, power and raw material and because of the foolish policy in many other lines in regard to grain and other matters. I believe there is a great deal of truth in the words of the late President Roosevelt, where a similar situation arose in his own country when he was in power. In regard to the waste of water-power in the United States he predicted that the day was not far distant when the United States would run out of coal, natural resources, particularly petroleum and gas. He said:
The people of our country are threatened by a monopoly more powerful than has been ever seen, as it affects very closely their domestic and industrial iife. Our next generation will witness a shortage of those natural resources, petroleum and gas. The price
Export oj Power

of coal will be such that hydraulic power turned into electrical energy will, owing to its cost, become the prevailing factor for transport, for manufacturers, for lighting and heating our towns. Our hydraulic power alone, entirely and judiciously employed, would be adequate for the present needs of transport, industries, municipalities and private individuals. The major portion of these powers is not developed and remains the national property. It would be madness to part, without conditions, with one of our greatest resources. If we become guilty of this crime, our children will be bound to pay an annual royalty on a capitalization fixed at the highest price that the trade will stand for. They will see themselves struggling with powerful sweaters entrenched behind the doctrine of discharged rights strengthened by all means of protection that money can buy and the cunning of corporations defended by legal men. These ogres of finance will have succeeded long before then tc monopolize those resources- so as to be able to dictate to the people the management of their affairs and their way of existence. Public opinion will be their least worry.
In conclusion, I appeal to the government of this country to-night to enable the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario, having pointed out the shortage of power, to go on with this Morrisburg development. This shortage was pointed out the other day in a report made by the chairman of that commission, Sir Adam Beck. He is sick and we do not know how much longer he will be with the people of Ontario. Possibly he may not be very much longer with us. He has had to face at times in the past twenty years the opposition of both-federal and provincial governments. His health has broken down in the effort to preserve this magnificent heritage of cheap light and power founded by the Conservative party, because this was brought about by the Conservative party in the province of Ontario. It was a protectionist development in the way of preserving their natural resources for the benefit of the people of Ontario. So I appeal to the government of Canada to-day to give the right answer to the government of Ontario in order to enable them to go on with the Morrisburg development. The application has been in for two years. It will enable the commission to supply electrical energy not only for the cities and the towns and the public utilities, but in addition for the farms of the province.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in listening to the arguments presented by hon. gentlemen opposite in support of the amendment which has been moved, they seemed to fall in the main under three heads: First, an argument in support of the conservation of our natural resources; second, an argument against international embarrassment through the export of power which it may be difficult and impossible

to withdraw later on, and, third, the undesirability of stimulating through the use of power generated in Canada, industries in the States which come into competition with our industries. These three headings include, in the main, the arguments that have jbeen adduced in support of the amendment that has been proposed. With respect to the motive underlying all three contentions, I believe the House as a whole will find itself in general sympathy. Whether or not the amendment as drafted is necessary in order to have the broad principles underlying these very important considerations recognized is, I think, open to question.
In the first place, with respect to the conservation of our natural resources, if an amendment were needed for that purpose, it would I believe, be speedily given support. The question, however, is not at the moment one of the conservation of our natural resources. The electrical energy available at the present time in the central area of Canada is estimated at something between eight and twelve million horse-power, of which but 1,200,000 odd horse-power has been developed, with a capacity development of, perhaps, 3,000.000 horse-power. Electrical energy in the matter of export is not of the same character as some other natural resources, minerals, for example. Minerals, once extracted and exported, are gone. Electrical energy	is	of such a nature	that whatwe transmit	at	the moment	will	make nodifference so	far	as the future	supply is concerned. Rivers continue to flow on, and if the opportunity is lost while it presents itself, it is lost forever, to the loss of all concerned. The argument therefore, as regards the conservation of our resources beyond the point of declaring that at no time should Canada export power that she needs or may need within	a	limited time,	has	no great
application.
I am sure every hon. member would wish, with respect to the export of power to see that und'er no condition was power exported which we would likely need in the immediate future, or which we would be unable to recover before the time at which the actual need might arise. With any policy that has that end in view, the government is wholeheartedly in accord. That aim however, is met completely by the first clause in the amendment:
That in the opinion of this House export of hydroelectric power from Canada should be permitted only on yearly license.
Speaking in this House some nights ago, I intimated, as respects the present adminis-

Export oj Power
traticn, that such was the basis on which we had proceeded in the past, that it was the basis on which we were proceeding at the present time; and that it is the basis on which we intend to proceed with respect to the export of electrical energy. We intend to grant licenses for export only for a year at a time, and where electrical energy is being exported under license for that period of time, all parties must understand that one of the purposes of the reservation is that it may be distinctly understood that this country may, at any moment, without giving cause for any right of action or ill-feeling on the part of the country to which energy may be exported, . have the right to make use cf its own electrical energy as required.
As to the second point, the danger of international embarrassment once power is exported on any scale, and attempt at withdrawal is made where industries as a consequence have been built up in an adjoining country, if I recollect aright the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) stressed that point strongly when speaking in the House not very long ago, and in so doing made a special reference to myself as likely to be in sympathy with him in that regard.
I am in entire sympathy with that point of view. I do not think it is the part of furthering good relations with our neighbours to tike any course likely to occasion serious embarrassment at a critical juncture, and I believe, if electrical energy were to be exported in great quantities for a period of time without every precaution being taken in the leases made, that kind of embarrassment mi^ht arise. It wculd be most unfortunate if, in this country, we did not foresee that possible danger and take every step that a government in its wisdom should take in avoiding possible embarrassment of that character. These international frontier problems are problems which, particularly in this country with its frontier of 4,000 miles, we cannot safeguard too carefully. The reason, however, which should cause us to be careful in the matter of preventing international embarrassment in the future ought to make us equally careful in not imposing a handicap to international negotiations in the present. We in this country have to rely, to some extent at least, upon our neighbours for certain importations. We have witnessed in Canada during the winter season times when we have been grateful to the United States that she has not seen fit to shut off the supply of coal coming into our country, when she has adopted the broad and neighbourly policy of saying that she would do for Canadian industry and for the Canadian people in the matter of coal supply practically what she was doing for her own industry and her own people. That is an attitude which I submit we should not forget in any line of policy we lay down and which may be directed particularly against our great neighbour to the south. What is true in the matter of the importation of coal is true also in regard to the importation of oil. It may also be true at any time with respect to some other commodity cr commodities which we find it necessary to obtain from that country.
In addition to this, we may by going the length of the. proposed amendment, be imposing a handicap on some of ou>r own provinces in the development of their resources. Mention has been made in the course of the debate to-day of an application that was made to the United (States to permit the exportation of power to Canada at a site near Waddington in which there is a small water development on the American, side and which some of our industries wished to take advantage of, as it would have been to their interest to have the use of power generated at that point. It is conceivable that at another point in Ontario power development might take place with advantage to a local industry on the other side, where an exchange could be made with our neighbours to balance our importation from them. (Such a reciprocal arrangement would be cut off completely if we adopted any such course as is now suggested, and far from its being to the advantage olf either country it would be a distinct loss to both.
The amendment declares that no license should be issued beyond those at present outstanding, except for off-peak power. This simply means that the hands of this and all other administrations would be completely tied in the matter of international negotiations; and I submit that it is not in the interests of Canada to have her hands tied in any particular in international negotiations with the United States. We should be as free as possible in our negotiations with the United States on trade and other matters, and should possess all latitude and powers calculated to be of service in such negotiations. We may not have occasion to use them, but to the extent to which we tie our own hands we help to render impotent the power of our own government when negotiating on any relevant question. I submit that to go the length of denying the administration that power of freedom in negotiation which should be reserved to it .is simply to work an injury to the country and to render no good service in return.
Export oj Power

In regard to 'the third point which has been raised, namely, that of building up American industries at the expense of our own, the argument sounds very plausible, but we must not forget that it is also applicable 'in its force from the other side of the line as well as from our own. We obtain large quantities of coal in this country from the United States for utilization in our industries and for the purpose of running our railways. And our railways and industries are competing with the railways and industries of the United States. Would this House regard as a neighbourly act an expression of opinion from the United States congress at any time that thereafter no further exportation of a commodity which was essential to us in connection with our industries should be permitted on any consideration? I contend that parliaments exist in part to help to maintain international good will, and that the broad interests of the nation rather than any special interests <or any party consideration ought to be the controlling principle in matters of this kind. As I have already said, while we cam apipreciate the force of an argument which would seek to conserve for our own needs, and in a manner that would avoid embarrassment, whatever is essential in the way of electrical power in the country, we should take care in presenting our point of view not to express it in such terms as would place in the hands of our enemy a weapon which could be used against us, and take out of our hand the power which we need for purposes of negotiation. For that reason I wish the mover of the resolu-
10 p.m. tion (Mr. LeSueur) could see his way to amend it. I would not ask him to withdraw it entirely, but I think he might amend it in accordance with a suggestion put forward in one or tiwo speeches this evening. The amendment as it stands reads:
That in the opinion of this House the export of hydro-electric power from Canada should be permitted only on yearly license, and no licenses should be issued beyond those at present [DOT] outstanding except for off-peak power.
I would suggest that the hon. member amend his resolution by deleting the words "and no licenses should be issued", and so on, and substituting therefor the words:
-and that hereafter no license for the export of power beyond that already granted should be issued except with the concurrence of the province or provinces in which it is proposed to develop such power.
I believe that if that provision were substituted it would give all the security that is needed. In the first place, it is I think an advantage both to the provinces and to the Dominion that each case involving the export of power should, as it arises, be examined on

its merits. There may be a situation in Ontario and Quebec which may be of considerable concern in some directions at a particular moment. But it does not follow that arguments applicable to it apply with equal force with respect, for example, to a situation in the prairies provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. It is conceivable that in those provinces the moment may come when some export of power may be desired in order to enable the development of power within the provinces themselves.


Mr.   IIOEY@: We have a surplus of power in Manitoba now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That being so, no doubt the province of Manitoba may wish to have the right at any time to export that power, and I think it would be unfair for this government or for the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec to say that Manitoba should not have that right. So doing, on the part of the federal government, might not as respects the export of power be an interference with provincial rights in the general acceptation of that term, but it certainly would be an interference with provincial interests in that matter of the development of their resources; and I submit that the federal government, should always seek to consider the wishes and the needs as well as the rights of the different provinces that go to make up confederation, and should not take a step, by means of a resolution such as this, which might cause embarrassment to even a single province and possibly considerable embarrassment to several. In a word, if this parliament declares that there should be no export of power except by yearly license, it thereby serves notice on its neighbour-because it is only to the United States that any export can take place-that at any time, as the needs of this country demand, that power export may be terminated, without occasioning a grievance or without having established any vested rights of the other side meanwhile. If beyond this it couples with that declaration the provision that all future licenses shall be granted only by concurrence of the province from which the power is to be exported, there should be every reason to feel that we have gone as far as we should in seeking to safeguard our resources. To go further would be possibly to work an injury in the opposite direction.
Now, I do not know whether my hon. friend will accept this suggestion, but if he does not I should find it difficult to appreciate this motion being moved on going into supply for any reason other than in some way to

Export oj Power
express a want of confidence in the government. I have stated frankly the policy of the administration. It is embodied in what I have just suggested as an amendment to the motion before the House, and in order that it may be perfectly clear to the House I shall read what I should like my hon. friend to move as expressive of the policy by which the government is prepared to stand:
That the export of hydro-electric power from Canada should be permitted only on yearfy license, and that hereafter no licenses for export of power beyond that already granted should be issued except with the concurrence of the province or provinces in which it is proposed to develop such power.
If the last part, which is what I suggest, is acceptable to my hon. friend, the government will certainly accept the first part of his resolution.


Arthur Meighen: Is it the Prime Minister's intention in the suggested amendment that if the power is developed in a particular province, the virtual authority of export should be vested in that province should the province desire to export any part of the power?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, the power to export is vested in the Dominion, and the Dominion will not exercise its power without the concurrence of the province concerned.


Arthur Meighen: I know, but my point is, will the Dominion grant a license to export if the province asks for it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not necessarily. I think if there is to be concurrence on the part of one there should also be concurrence on the part of the other.


Arthur Meighen: What principle would
the government adopt? Because the resolution would be silent on that question entirely if amended in the manner the Prime Minister suggests. What principle would the government adopt in determining to grant a license if the province desired to export?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have said already, I do not think this is a matter on which it is possible to generalize. I think each case would have to be examined and dealt with on its merits. The hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) quoted a case. He alleges that by by treaty rights the province of New Brunswick can export a certain amount of power regardless of what might be said by the federal authority. There are those who hold that that is not a true interpretation, that as a matter of legal obligation the province is obliged to come to the federal government to get the right to export. I do not think where there is doubt

on such a question we should adopt a motion of the kind proposed. As I understand the hon. member for St. John and Albert, he is prepared to have that export of power granted in virtue of the treaty obligation. But if it be a fact that in law that right does not so exist, or if it is open to controversy, we may have in the interval a long legal controversy arising out of the decision by this House on the question of policy. Where there is a legal doubt of the kind, if the course we are proposing is sufficient to secure the country in its main objective, I submit it is better for us to follow that course than take a step which may occasion serious embarrassment to the provinces. As an analogous case, take other boundary waters between the United States and Canada. Along the boundary in any particular province it may be that a municipality may wish to develop its waterpower, but that it can only do so by building dams within its own territory. Inasmuch, however, as the water is international, the consent of the country to the south may have to be obtained before that step can be taken. Now, in the case of New Brunswick first cited, the consent of the United States was given to the course there adopted, on the understanding that the United States would be entitled to a certain quantity of the power generated after the installation was completed. That same condition might arise in many of our border municipalities, yet if we adopted this resolution and followed it those municipalities might be prevented from developing water-power which would be of the greatest service to them, simply because it lay beyond the jurisdiction of parliament to grant the necessary license for export under an arrangement which would permit of that power being developed. Therefore the more one considers it the more one feels, I think, that there is every reason why if in a matter of great national importance such as this we are conserving our resources and safeguarding our industries and the future, we should be most careful about taking a step which might create embarrassment in international negotiations.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Take the case of a waterpower which may be located in one province but vitally affects the rights of another province, for instance, the Winnipeg river-I am not citing that specifically, but merely as a general illustration-one province might be willing to consent to the export, but the other province vitally affected by that export, might be opposed, and yet would have no voice in
Export of Power

the decision by reason of the amendment suggested by the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In what I
suggested I used the expression "with the concurrence of the province or provinces in which it is proposed to develop such power."


Henry Herbert Stevens: Take for instance, Ontario and Manitoba, the development of the power is in Ontario, the use of the power is in Manitoba; that is, the main body of citizens affected by any export that might occur would be those in the latter province, yet the whole development is in Ontario, and therefore under the proposed amendment Manitoba would be helpless.


Mr. HOEY:: The development is in Manitoba.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The development is in
part at least in Ontario. I am not limiting myself to this particular case. There might be a case where the development would be wholly within one province, but its export would vitally affect the industrial welfare of the neighbouring province. The Prime Minister, I think, appreciates my point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think what
my horn, friend says shows the wisdom of the very course I am suggesting. What my hon. friend wishes the government to do is to be considerate of the interests of the provinces. He wants us not to sacrifice the interests of one province to those of another that might possibly be affected by any export of power. I would say that such would be the point of view from which the government would wish to proceed. We would wish to consider the interests of all the provinces concerned. I do not think it would be wise in stating a general policy at the moment to define it too much, but I would point out to my hon. friend that the amendment which is before the House would absolutely prevent any bind of consideration of tlhe interests of either province in the case he cites, and if there is any merit to be urged for what he has put forward, he should be the first to see the wisdom of following what is here suggested rather than adopting the more restrictive policy which would deny the Dominion any power of discretion in such a case.
I should perhaps add in order to make my position clear, that I assume the House understands that where there is an amendment on going into supply, an amendment to the amendment cannot be moved. Had it been possible to do so, I would have made a motion in that form. I have asked my hon. friend if it is possible for him to accept my

suggestion and submit a modified amendment, instead of his own motion as drafted; if he cannot see his way to do that, I have simply to remind the House that the government ban take no course other than to regard the motion directed against us as under the circumstances, a vote of want of confidence. I have tried to avoid the necessity of a division by making to my hon. friend what I believe to be a very reasonable suggestion.


William Charles Good: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Prime Minister if the amendment he now proposes could not be so altered as to require the concurrence of the federal government and the province or provinces affected?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what I am suggesting.


William Charles Good: Not I think so far as the
concurrence of the federal government is concerned. Is that implied in the resolution as proposed to be amended?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am saying
the federal government will not agree to give in future licenses for export except with the concurrence of the provinces. The power to give export licenses resides in the federal government, but I am agreeing that it shall not be exercised except with the concurrence of the province concerned.


William Charles Good: So long as that is clear, it is all right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is clear.


Arthur Meighen: We have often debated
subjects in this House before rather crowded numbers that were of infinitely less consequence than what is presented this afternoon, and in years after when much that is good will have been forgotten, the course parliament takes on this question will be remembered as a landmark either to our credit or to our discredit.
The resolution is clear in its terms, to my mind is unobjectionable from every standpoint, but great efforts have been made to find in some remote, imaginary contingency an occasion when the principle that we ask to be adhered to might possibly have to be modified.
Why is it that we should in the first place direct policy against the export of power? I intend to give in very simple words the reason as it appeals to my own mind. I cannot see how the reason will appeal to any of those who follow the doctrines of the freetrader. I cannot see how it will appeal to those who still have faith in maxims that are

Export oj Power
recited in this House times without number; but I believe the reason will appeal to practical men.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I mean every word. I think the policy of so directing trade currents as to keep at home the raw resources of a nation for the use of that nation itself is one approved by experience, and now all but universally in practice. Different methods are adopted. The protective method is only one, but it is the chief the world over.


Mr. YIEN:: Thie right hon. gentleman cannot conceive of some cases where the development of the natural resources of a province must of necessity entail the export of power if there is not in that province sufficient market for its development?


Arthur Meighen: I would answer the
question were it appropriate, but inasmuch as it has nothing to do with the argument I am on, I will postpone reference to it until perhaps it will have some relation to what I am saying.
The protective method is one, and it is the most universal. It is perhaps the most effective of all. There are cases to which it cannot apply. The case before us is one where it will not apply. Others would be where a nation had certain resources far too great for immediate development to the finished state, having regard to the then population of that nation. Such cases include our own supply of asbestos and of nickle. These must be provided for some other way, but the case before us is that of power.
Power is the rawest of all resources. Power is much more rudimentary, much more an instrument of further development and production than is any other raw resource whatsoever. Power bears the same relation to the ordinary raw resources of a country that those raw resources bear to the finished products of the country. It is the instrument by which the mineral is delved from the ground; it is the instrument by which the coal is heaved to the surface. It is the most fundamental and rudimentary of all things looking to the expansion of a nation; so that the arguments, which apply in favour of directing trade currents and trade policy so as to keep raw resources for development by the people of a country apply with double force to the case of power. But if they are no good with relation to the development of our raw resources, they are equally worthless with relation to power. If they have no application to the other resources of a country, they cannot be contorted into an argument for the
preservation of power, and those who still adhere to the theory that you must follow the natural trade current, that what a man or a country owns or wants he should sell in the dearest and buy in the cheapest market, those who adhere to these things cannot on any account find any ground to stand on if they wish to preserve to a nation the power that is resident within it. But there are few of those.
I think we all agree in this House that it would be nothing but suicidal for Canada to allow the export of these irreplaceable, limited, vitally precious resources from this country! We have done so in the past. Every nation in its early years of development is compelled to permit to some extent-and now I am at the point raised by my hon. friend from Lot-biniere (Mr. Vien)-the export of its raw product. We have been compelled to in our earlier years. W e have done too much of it. But as a country develops and gets stronger, it is able to take care of these more and more, and directs its trade policy to do so. We' permitted the export of power for years. We did not permit the export of a very great quantity relative to what we possessed. But
200,000	horse-power is a large amount, and that now is under license. There is this to be said for our conduct: Not only was it in line with what younger countries are very often compelled to do, but at the time the policy grew up, the Value of this great property was1 not fully understood. The value of coal in early years was not fully understood. It has taken a longer time still to have us realize the tremendous resources that we have in our water-powers. Of far greater value will it be m the long years to come than any other single thing in the way of a material product that we possess. As electricity has advanced, as the knowledge of that science has developed, we come more and more to realize the value of what we have, and consequently we get now to the position where we do not look upon these things as we did in the earlier days.
Now why is it that we say we have reached the stage when we should export no more? Well, I state it in this way: We have reached the stage where .already we feel the pinch in certain parts of our country. In large portions we do not, but in the industrial portions of our country we have got to the point where if we permit further export we are going to find ourselves within a comparatively few years bereft of these things essential to our growth. It is said we have some forty million in this country of potential horse-power. Well, I presume we have just in the same way as we have millions of acres in Greenland, millions of acres up in northern Ontario and the North-
Export oj Power

west Territories, but in so far as the available horse-power is concerned, we have not nearly the half of that figure; and in so far as that is concerned which is within transmission range of industrial Canada, we have not more than one-third of it; and in the province of Ontario, within transmission range of industrial Ontario, we have not now more than will be overtaken and be in use within a space of not more than fifteen years, and probably not more than ten or twelve years.	t
In this I quote not only the opinion of engineers as 'I have them before me in the Engineering Journal, but the considered opinion of Sir Adam, Beck who has been closer to the problem than any other man. The situation in Quebec is somewhat different. At the estimated rate of increased consumption they will pr-oibaibly have absorbed alii they possess withnn the space of twenty to twenty-five years. Now, it may appear to some the better course to say: Let us get rid of^ what is going to waste in the meantime, and, in the words of the Prime Minister, do it only by a yearly license, do it with the distinct understanding that we can take it back whenever we like, and then all will !be well. To that we on this side of the House are definitely opposed, and we are opposed because of the lessons oif experience, and because of the reasoning that applies to our relations at the present time. Power differs from all things else. If we export power to another country that other country .gets into the position where it cannot supply what we now supply, where it can obtain it from no other .source. Power is not something that is in the world market, that another country can substitute for if a first country withdraws. Power is something which once exported becomes the foundation of a great vested right and the withdrawal of it-however closely, however narrowly and carefully it may have been provided for-becomes a practical impossibility. We found ourselves in, the position that when we needed the power badly we could not withdraw it and we found1, as well, that although we applied the system of yearly licenses the company undertook to give contracts extending over a period of time and we were bound not only by the rates secured by the industry erected bult were also bound, in a measure, by the contract although that contract had no warrant to be entered into. And if we pursue the same course in the future that we have pursued in the past, and go on 'giving these yearly licenses, we will find ourselves in a very short time in relation to that power just where we do now in relation to the poweT licenses in the past. We will find industries

gathered round us, we will find municipalities dependent upon it, we will find ourselves powerless to withdraw into our own country the resources we have once let go from our midst. I do not think there are any associated with the power industry who have any other opinion. I do not think the Prime Minister has any other opinion. I do not think any member of the government would stand and say that if we give yearly licenses now and new uses are found for new power development in Canada no matter how we may surround thie export license with safe,guards and guarantees, just as soon as those uses become established and those industries and those municipalities there become dependent upon them, we cannot withdraw it. We may as well face the facts. So, I say we should make a pronouncement against further export.
The reasons urged against it are rather ingenious. I had thought this resolution embodied what appeared to be the all but universal ' opinion of the people of Canada. If ever the people of Canada came together on any single question, a study of the newspapers of the last month would indicate they had come together on this. Throughout the length and breadth of this country there appears to be little difference of view. It all arose because of certain reports which emanated from Ottawa, respecting the Carillon power, of proposed development and of proposed export. The history of that project I do not need to review. I think the House may consider, in view of the statement of the government to-day that whatever might have been, their flirtations with this project, they have now been compelled to give it up, and there is not going to be any export of Carillon power. Because in respect of Carillon power the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are the provinces interested, and as every one knows those provinces as at present governed will not consent to any export at all. So the need of a detailed review of the history of Carillon project has gone. Whatever other results these debates have had, they have had this result-that they put back into limbo the possibility of a tragedy in connection with Carillon power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I remind my right hon. friend that what I said to-night was just what I said the first time this subject came up; it has been our point of view all the time.


Arthur Meighen: Well, I do not think it is precisely the same. I do not say that because I intend to enter into any argument as to the difference. I know the Prime Minister

Ex-port of Power
said, as about the last word in the debate, after all along efforts had been made to get an assurance of policy, that the government intended to continue the system of yearly license. That, however, is not sufficient. In the course of that debate-it was on the same subject as this-I asked and asked repeatedly, and I directed my words to the Minister of Railways, that an assurance be given parliament that there would be no license issued in future save on a yearly basis, and no license issued at all for further export if the power was to be used for any new development industrial or municipal over there. One would have thought that assurance would have been easily given if the government had no project in contemplation in relation to Carillon. But I could not get the assurance. I tried one day and I tried the next day, but the government sat silent. So I do not think this House could take from any statement of the government on that occasion that they were opposed to a further export of power. Certainly the country did not so assume and in this connection the country was right.
Now I am coming to some of the reasons urged against the resolution as it stands. It is said by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Marler) that he is opposed to the export of power. He would go even further than the resolution. He would not make any considerable exception of off-peak power. Well, we are prepared to grant the exception, we are prepared to make the elimination. As far as that goes we will go the whole length and prohibit the exportation of off-peak power. But we did not want to have a resolution to which any reasonable objection could be raised, and there is never going to be any serious thing happen from the exportation of off-peak power. No industry in the world is ever going to invest money in a contract on the faith of off-peak power; if the demand is sufficient at home no man would ever invest money or acquire a vested right position in a contract for the importation of off-peak power.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Would my right hon. friend do me the favour of admitting that I said no power should be exported without the consent of the province in which the power lies?


Arthur Meighen: I am coming to that;
that is another point. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George would go the length of preventing exportation.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Would my right hon. friend be kind enough to couple what I said then with what I formerly said? Both statements 274
should be taken together; I think that is only fair.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member's argument against the resolution first of all was this, and it was because of that argument he finally made the addition that he would allow exports only with the concurrence of the province. He said that we might have a contingency where it might pay us to make the sacrifice.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: He said that some contingency might occur later on but his imagination did not carry him to the extent of trying to picture it to the House.


Herbert Meredith Marler: May I say that-


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member finds
it easier to interrupt than he does to make an argument on his feet. Though the principle is sound there might be occasion for exception. For myself I do not know what the contingency would be. I can imagine of course in the event of war, where terms of peace were being settled, it might be easy to give up something in order to get something else; but dear me these are not laws of the Medes and Persians which we are enacting. We are only declaring a principle. The fact of the matter is that indeed the government can act without a statute at all and without coming to parliament.


Herbert Meredith Marler: The right hon. member
is enunciating the precise principle which I declared. If there is a necessity that we should export power for the advantage of Canada, then and then only would I consent to the export of power, with the consent of the provinces.


Arthur Meighen: If I was enunciating the same principle as the hon. member, he should have been satisfied, but I was not enunciating the same principle.


Herbert Meredith Marler: My right hon. friend is
enunciating no principle at all except politics.


Arthur Meighen: A contingency which
might arise could be taken care of at the time. Parliament can act as it will. The government would have to come to parliament on every occasion in order to take action. Can anybody imagine any case where the government would want to act in the export of power, if this resolution passes, where it would be embarrassed by coming back to parliament to settle the terms of the arrangement with another country and ask for ratification? All these matters with other countries are ratified now by parliament, but

Export oj Power

as the law stands to-day, the Export Act is such that the government might enter into a contract of any kind whatever as to the export of power and not be under the necessity of coming back to parliament. All we ask is that a principle be embodied that parliament declare its will, and if any emergency occurs in the future, that few of us could ever imagine-I do not know what it would be- the government could come back and state the case to parliament, and parliament could act if it desired on the recommendation' of the government.


Thomas Vien: The right hon. gentleman does not conceive that that provision would be a serious embarrassment for the government?


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. It would
be a help to the government. The government would be far better in negotiating with another country to have to say to that country, "We must go to parliament to get this done," and anyway is it not right that parliament lay down a general policy? If the government sees something great can be gained from that policy, it is not prevented from going to parliament and saying "Here is the policy: we ask you to accept that and make a sacrifice in order to accept it;" so that this excuse for voting against the resolution is no excuse at all. It does not amount to anything. The hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George is mumbling in his seat. He surely is not asleep. Why can he not act in parliament like other hon. members, and when he wants to make a speech get up and make it, and not sit in his seat groaning and mumbling?


Herbert Meredith Marler: My hon. friend would
not suggest that I should act as he does in parliament. I should be very sorry to do that.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think the hon. member ever will.


Herbert Meredith Marler: No, indeed.


Arthur Meighen: Another hon. member
says that if this resolution passes New Brunswick is going to be in a fix, that that province cannot allow 2,000 horse-power to be exported in relation to a development there now impending. I think the argument advanced by the hon. member for St. John and Albert (Mr. Baxter) clears that contention away completely. Certainly anything we have agreed to in the past is covered by licenses outstanding. Anything agreed to by treaty we are going to perform. We agreed in the treaty with the United States that in

relation to international waters the jurisdiction should rest with the International Joint Commission, and that commission says that in the disposition of the power of the St. John river at a certain point, owing to certain flowage rights which must obtain in the state of Maine, it is only right that 2,000 horsepower should go there. We granted that right and agreed to it years ago, and it is not covered by the resolution. This is only finding straws in the road; they are not obstacles. It is the principle of the resolution to which we have asked adherence.


George Perry Graham: If the power company
developed on the Canadian side, would it not be incumbent on that company to come to the Dominion government to get a license to export it?


Arthur Meighen: It may be technically
incumbent upon it but the Dominion government has already agreed to give the license.


George Perry Graham: No.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it has agreed by treaty to give it. Does the minister say that any discretion rests with this government as to the issue of that license; that the United States of America is in the position still that it is dependent on the discretion of the government of Canada? Absolutely it is not. The issue of the license is a mere matter of course, and would not be prevented or postponed by this resolution for an hour.


George Perry Graham: It might be.


Arthur Meighen: No.


George Perry Graham: It will raise a serious question as to the issue of the bonds.


Arthur Meighen: No.


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I should like the minister to try it. The passing of the resolution does not affect anything. The country has already agreed to it. It is only trying to find something in the way, and the government has industriously dug up little things. It is said, "Let us agree upon this, that we as a government will say,.'We will not issue any licenses except yearly licenses' ". So far so good; or that parliament may be said to be at one'-at least in so far as two groups in the House are concerned, and the other group has been silent up to this time. I do not want to assume to speak for those for whom I have no right to speak. But as to the rest, we cannot agree. We will not give yearly licenses for additional

Export oj Power
export except for off-peak power. To that we cannot agree, but we will agree that we will not issue licenses for any further export of power unless the province in which the development occurs agrees. I do not like the principle of that as well as I like the principle of this resplution. I do not like to see parliament surrendering its jurisdiction but this distinctly does so. I prefer parliament exercising its own right. I do not like parliament saying, "we have certain responsibilities, but we have not the courage to live up to them." We will not act even within the ambit of our own authority, unless we first get the say-so of the provinces affected by our action. I think we should declare a policy of ourselves on a great matter within our own jurisdiction, but I do not want to be too ambitious in our demands. What the Prime Minister says certainly will not cover the case. There are many powers in this country in which more than one province is interested, and the province interested most is one where the power is not developed, where the province in which the power is developed may have little population and no industrial life, but it may be situated near industrial life in another province, and that other province is the more affected of the two. There are certainly powers in the Winnipeg river in which two provinces are interested. I believe Manitoba-correcting the hon. member behind me-has more actual power sites in the Winnipeg river, more power potentialities within its boundary than Ontario, but Ontario surely is not to be told that it has no interest whatever in powers developed in Manitoba, nor the province of Manitoba to be told that it has no interest in the power developed in Ontario. Similar cases, I am told, even more striking in their relationship to this proposition, exist as between Alberta and British Columbia, and I do not doubt that cases would be found still between Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is why the Dominion has jurisdiction. I do not know that there will be cases where more than two provinces would be affected. Perhaps there would not be.
Though I do not like the principle, in order to show that we are not moving this merely for the sake of a party vote, if the Prime Minister will change his amendment and say that no license will be issued except with the approval of the provinces affected by the development, then I for one would be willing to recommend to my hon. friend that he accept the amendment suggested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite
prepared to do that. It is in accord with the spirit of what I have said.
274i	-


Arthur Meighen: That will be satisfactory as far as this side is concerned. Before I sit down, I want to say a word in relation to this question which is continually raised, that if we pursue this course, we are not acting in a neighbourly way to the United States; that we may bring upon our heads retaliation, and that they have not acted towards us in this spirit in the past. I have no sympathy whatever with those words, and I want to say so with the utmost frankness. In the first place, it sounds strange in my ears that properties which are ours, in which no other country can claim an interest at all, are properties the disposition of which must be governed, not by our interest alone, but by the interest in some degree of another land. Are we not to be permitted in this Dominion, in relation to assets which are ours entirely, to pass such laws as best suit the interests of Canada-


Thomas Vien: Irrespective of reprisals?


Arthur Meighen: -irrespective wholly of reprisals, for fear another country would not like the step we took, thinking it is not in their interest? Will the hon. member tell me of any country that ever acted in that way towards us?


Thomas Vien: Because, my right 'hon. friend knows it; we never acted in that way towards them.


Arthur Meighen: I know of no other
country that ever acted in that way towards us. I want to make clear what I say. I do not say that in all water-powers in which we are interested, the United States have no interest. Wherever they have an interest, I would recognize it to the full and I would treat with them in a neighbourly and friendly way, but as respects our own I would dispose of our own water-powers wholly in the interest of Canada. When I say that, I want to ask my hon. friend: Does he think the United States has ever disposed of any resource of that country save with an eye to its own interests? Does, he think coal has been sold to the people of the Dominion of Canada just in order to keep us warm?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my right hon. friend not know that during a period of great fuel shortage in this country and in the country to the south, when the United States were being urged by some of their own industries to conserve all the coal for themselves, they took the position that they wou'd treat the people of Canada in the same way as they would their own people?
Export oj Power


Arthur Meighen: Yes, that is true, but
they did it in their own interest. They knew this country could have got coal elsewhere and that the markets which they have been supplying would have been filled and would have been lost to them. I am not saying this in criticism of their spirit. Their spirit is perfectly right, but their action was dictated by a regard, not for our country, but for their own interests, and that is what dictates the course of any country.


Mr. McMASTER:: The right hon. gentleman's argument is that there is no such thing as generosity. That is the inference.


Mr. ARCH  AMBAXJLT@: That is his
criterion.


Arthur Meighen: My criterion is this, that the greatest generosity a country can perform to the world is to look after itself.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: That is selfishness.


Arthur Meighen: Certainly, and if we
have reached the stage when we are not able to look after ourselves, we had better haul the flag down and no longer claim to be a country acting on its own initiative. The United States does not need our generosity. If it does, I do not know when it got into that position. The people of the United States are able to take care of themselves. They do not ask for our generosity. We are exporting to-day 200,000 horse-power. If we say that we do not intend to export any more, say so frankly and act upon our statement, have the United States any complaint? I do not know what just complaint they would have. I suppose if they acted in a corresponding way, they would say: Well, we will not export any more coal than we are exporting now. I for one would not weep very much if they took that view. I would feel that that was not doing any good to the United States, and it was certainly not doing any harm to us. Certainly let them restrict their export of coal to the coal they are exporting now. Would the hon. gentleman hang his head in fear? It would be the best thing that ever happened to us. The hon. member shakes his head.


Thomas Vien: Does my right hon. friend
contend that if shipments of coal from the United States to Canada ceased to-morrow, that would not play havoc with many industries?


Arthur Meighen: I did not say that. I
said if they restricted the export to the export that is going on now.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The right hon. member has not the courage of his own convictions because if he were logical, he would stop the export altogether.


Arthur Meighen: I have not the stopping
of it. They have the stopping of it.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I know that.


Arthur Meighen: Then what does the hon. member mean?


Thomas Vien: Supposing they do stop the shipment of coal to Canada, that would work havoc with our industries.


Arthur Meighen: As soon as the United States feel it is in the interest of the United States to stop the shipment of coal to Canada, they will stop it. It is not in the interests of the United States to-day and they know it is not. I do not think they have ever acted in the spirit of injuring another country to the injury of themselves. That is not the spirit of neighbours. But in disposing of their own ressources to their own advantage, they are behaving only as a nation is bound to do, and they have never pretended to be in favour of any other principle. The United States, if they felt it was in the interest of that country to impose an embargo on the export of coal, would not wait twenty-four hours before the embargo was imposed on the export of coal. * The same thing is true of oil. This country would not be helpless in its development. I know there would be very considerable disturbance; I know it would injure us for a time; but I know also it would very seriously injure the United States and I do not fear it. There are, however, other places where we can get coal and other places where we can get oil. This country could rise to the event. This country would be injured less than the country which acted only to hurt another even at the expense of hurting itself. All these ghosts are ghosts and ghosts alone. The United States is not going to prevent the export of coal because it pays the United States to sell coal. It is not going to prevent the export of oil because it pays the United States to sell oil. The United States to-day in more than one state would not let a single horse-power pass out of its borders. They say: Oh well, we might need a little bit of power at Watertown; we might be ready to give you a little bit somewhere else.


George Perry Graham: Waddington.


Arthur Meighen: It will not matter much, because we shall not get the power.

Export of Power


George Perry Graham: We were offered it.


Arthur Meighen: We were offered it, but on terms we would not accept. Does anybody imagine we are going to suffer because the United States will not sell us a little waterpower? We shall get along all right. This is a resource where we have an advantage and which we must have looking to the future development of our country. What we must do is to assert our advantages fearlessly, and we shall not wither one iota in the esteem of the United States. They will think all the more of us and they will be just as good neighbours as they ever were. No country is going to act in a spirit of generosity to us because we raise a sort of white flag and say: It will be in our interest to do this, but we will not do it for fear we shall hurt you. Let Canada get out of that way of thinking, and the sooner we get out of it, the better. We have been in it altogether to long. Consequently, in so far as this argument is concerned. I give it no strength, no weight at all. The only principle to follow is to act as to our property in our best interest. Do not injure ourselves in order to injure another. Act with regard to it only with a view to helping our own people to the utmost of our ability.
I have stated this in order that the House may know how I look upon these matters. I have not stated it because it will have any effect on a division, as I apprehend there will be no division. I accept the amendment in order that we may be united and that the whole world may know how we are travelling in relation to this great question. But I would prefer that governmental responsibility should not be shirked, and I would have preferred that it be declared once and for all that we are against further exportation; but I accept it inasmuch as I believe this amendment in its practical result will reach the same end as the amendment that was moved before, because I do not believe that our provinces will agree to the export at all. That being my opinion, I accept the amendment as now agreed to by the Prime Minister himself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Before the hon. member
addresses the House, I must point out that the amendment cannot be moved by the Prime Minister. The amendment as now amended shou'd be accepted by the mover, and in order that this may be done it is necessary that the leave of the House be obtained, inasmuch as it is not usual for the mover of an amendment to amend his motion except by unanimous consent.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. member for
Brome (Mr. McMaster) were allowed to proceed now, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who moved the amendment in the first instance (Mr. LeSueur) would have the revised motion ready for the House at the conclusion of the hon. gentleman's speech.
Mr. ANDREW MoMASTER (Brome): I would not delay the House were it not that something that should be said in the debate has not so far been said. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) gave expression to an opinion that is perfectly true; he said that his words would not be acceptable to those who believe in the principles of free trade. I can agree most heartily with him in that regard. But the right hon. gentleman also said that they would be agreed to by practical men. Now, who are the practical men? Before the Great war came as a scourge to humanity the practical men had said that armaments would ensure peace, that one tariff against another would increase the prosperity of the nations, and that it was a wise and practical thing for the great imperialist nations of Europe to stake out claims for themselves in Africa and Asia. These were the arguments used by practical men, and the present condition of the world is due to the principles which the practical men carried into effect; it is due to the fact that these practical men would not listen to the idealists, whom they dismissed as stupid, foolish and unwise.
It was Gladstone who said that the longer he lived the more he appreciated the value of the principle of liberty; and the longer I live and have a seat in this House the more I disapprove of the principle of restriction. When I listen to a man of real native ability, such as the leader of the opposition, fulminating in favour of restriction, as he has done for half or three quarters of an hour to-night, I am led to believe that his real idea of national prosperity would envisage himself mournfully sitting on a desert island surrounded by a sea so full of reefs that no ship could possibly inundate that country with waves of foreign goods, and with embargoes against 11 p.m. the export of raw materials, and with an immigration department whose chief abject was to keep people out of the land. That it seems to me would be a condition which in his view would bring about great prosperity in this country. Now, I have a few words to say regarding his policy of keeping at home the raw products of a
Export oj Power

nation. These products of the nation should be exported when there is a profit in exporting them, and those who own these products will have a better understanding of what it is profitable to export than could any government that you might conceive of. This idea, that governments should direct trade channels and trade currents, is one great fallacy that has done as much harm to the progress of humanity as almost any fallacy which has afflicted mankind. Suicide for Canada, the right hon. gentleman says. I say this to him, in all sincerity, that the surest way for the Dominion of Canada to commit suicide is to surround itself with policies of restriction either on goods coming in or on goods or power going out.
Addressing myself more nearly to what the right hon. gentleman said, I want to say just a word or two. He said that in eastern Canada the province of Quebec had perhaps one-third of forty million, or about thirteen million, horse-power, and he added that within twenty years that power would be all used up, because the lines of transmission could not go further than would bring power that could be all used in twenty years. May I tell him that at the present time the city of Montreal does not use up the water-power which is generated within a radius of thirty miles. There is the great power at Lachine and there is the power at Chambly, and I am told that these great powers are not in operation to-day, the water running to waste. The development is there but the water is not being used. One argument is that if we once allow power to be exported we shall not be able to stop that export hereafter. That is a mistake. The United States is not going to be dependent on our power. The 'amount of power from Canada that could be used by the United States is very small in comparison with all the horse-power generated in that country either by water development or by steam converted into electricity. There is a tremendous amount of power generated in tihe United States, and the amount that we shall supply at any time in the future will not be so very considerable as to force it to be taken into too great consideration. There is no difficulty in that direction and it is a mistake to harp upon that string. It seems to me that if there is any danger in our dealings with the United States it will be to follow a policy of dog in the manger, because that might excite retaliation. - Reference is made to the Fordney tariff. What was responsible for the Fordney tariff? It was excited by the embargo on newsprint and by our foolidh rejection of the reciprocity arrangement. The

leader of the opposition has preached in this House a doctrine which I think is a somewhat mistaken one; he says that all the nations of the world are ruled and should be ruled by stark national selfishness. They should not think of the other fellow at all. What an extraordinary statement from a man Who a few years ago said that Canada was prepared to bankrupt itself for the empire!


Arthur Meighen: Would it not have been in our selfish interest to do that rather than to have been conquered?
Mr. MeMASTER: If you put it on the ground of merely selfish interest, that is another argument. But I did not so understand the right hon. gentleman's words.


Arthur Meighen: Read what I said and you will see that that is one of the grounds, and a strong one.	.


Mr. McMASTBR:: It was a ground that was not urged when my right hon. friend made patriotic statements.


Arthur Meighen: Because I was misrepresented for political purposes.


Andrew Ross McMaster: The first time I had the pleasure of meeting the right hon. gentleman at Morrisburg in the fall of 1915 I know that sudh a sentiment was utterly absent from anything that he said on that occasion.


Arthur Meighen: Your memory is weak.
Mr.	McMASTER:	If these are the
ghosts which hon. gentlemen on this side of the House have raised, in connection with the possibility of retaliation from the United States, then I think the right hon. gentleman's own words may be compared to evil angels. On t'he whole, there is not much in the argument of my learned friend, and as the House is anxious that the question shall come to a vote I will not delay it longer.


Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by Mr. LeSueur, seconded by Mr. Hanson:
That in the opinion of this House the export of hydro-electric power from Canada should be permitted only on yearly license, and that hereafter no license for export of power beyond that already granted should be issued except with the concurrence of the province or provinces in which it is proposed to develop such power and of any other provinces adjacent to such development and interested therein.
Amendment agreed to on division.


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment has been agreed to. Therefore I do not now leave the chair unless another motion is made to that effect.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I move that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair forthwith for the House to resolve itself into committee of Supply.

Export of Power
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure). Mr. Speaker, I want to crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments to refer to the interest that prevails in the province of Quebec at the present time with respect to the circulation through the newspapers of news items to the effect that a question which I had the honour to submit to the House during the course of last session had finally been settled. I refer to the inclusion in the Canadian National Railway system of the two Gaspesian railways, the Quebec Oriental and the Atlantic, Quebec and Western. These news items circulated from the capital have evoked considerable interest among the people whom I have the honour to represent, but I regret to say that as yet the question has not been solved in this satisfactory way. We hope, however, that before long a solution will be found. I am glad to be able to state that since the matter was last discussed in the House considerable headway has been effected. The Board of Railway Commissioners has visited the Gaspesian peninsula for the purpose of holding an investigation into the matter, and I had the honour in the month of October last of accompanying Mr. Justice McKeown and Mr. Commissioner Lawrence and their staff during the course of that investigation. The commissioners stopped at every station, listened to the representations of the people interested, and gave them encouragement to think that a solution might be brought about under the Railway Act. A few days after the opening of the present session the Prime Minister and three of his colleagues, the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the Minister of Health (Mr. Beland), were kind enough to grant an interview with you Mr. Speaker, with the Premier of Quebec, represented by Hon. Mr. Perrault, His Lordship Bi.-hop Ross of Gaspe and the leading people of that part of the country. The argument made by His Lordship Bishop Ross for the taking over of these railways by the government was that Sir Henry Thornton had come to a decision, based solely upon revenues and expenditures, without taking into account the general considerations which presumably would influence the government. Sir Henry Thornton had in effect made a proposal to the proprietors to take over their railways on certain conditions, which the latter did not think proper to accept. Therefore the deputation asked the Prime Minister and his colleagues if they could not find a solution for this long-standing problem. When these railways were completed in 1911 it was understood that the Laurier administration contemplated taking them over and merging them with the Intercolonial. An effort was made during tlie Borden regime to have this given effect to. When the late Mr. Cochrane introduced hi? measure for the inclusion of two hundred miles of branch lines with the Intercolonial railway, practically every line in New Brunswick was taken over, and one or two in Quebec, but these two lines were left to one side. During the war no progress was made in the matter, but when the new administration came into office in 1921 the people of the Gaspe peninsula felt that another effort should be made to secure for themselves some share of the benefits to which they were entitled. It must not be forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that the Gaspe peninsula is the oldest settlement in the Dominion; within a few years 'four centuries will have elapsed since Jacques Cartier landed at Gaspe. The people of the peninsula have contributed their share to the upbuilding of Canada, including the construction of the railway systems of this country, and they feel that they are entitled to that fair consideration which up to the present has not been extended to them. I am glad to know that through the breaking down of the discussion between Sir Henry Thornton and the proprietors of these two railways, another attempt is being made to try to bring the parties together through the good offices uf Mr. Justice McKeown, who has been asked to express an opinion, as a result of the investigation he made of the lines, on what would be a fair and reasonable amount to be paid. The government takes the position that owing to the financial condition of the country it is out of the question for the Canadian National Railway system to buy the two railways, but that if Sir Henry Thornton was prepared to lease them on terms acceptable to the proprietors and the railway commission, probably the government would raise no Objection.
I mention these facts, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to take this opportunity on behalf of my constituents of thanking the premier of Quebec and his colleagues for their active interest in the matter; His Eminence Cardinal Begin for the assistance he has given us; His Lordship Bishop Ross for speaking a good word for the peninsula, and the members of the legislature of Quebec, and others representing both sides of politics, and in fact representing the entire population of the peninsula, for the efforts they have made to help bring about a satisfactory settlement of this question.	It is a wonder
to-day to people visiting the Gaspe peninsula that these two isolated railways have been able to continue in operation so
Export of Power

long, and that it has not been possible long ago to merge them with the Canadian National Railway system. These two railways with the limited resources at their disposal have given a much improved service during the last two years, and the railway commission has made a very favourable report on their operating efficiency. But by the mere fact of being isolated, these two railways are unable to give those through rates to the inhabitants that would be possible if they formed part of the Canadian National Railways. They have to contend against water competition during six months of the year, and under the arrangement made at the time the railway subsidies were voted in 1911, they have carried the mails for the past fourteen years every day year in and year out through the long winter months for a distance of 130 miles along the dreary Gaspe coast without receiving one dollar from the government of Canada for the service. Notwithstanding this, the service has been kept up as best it could, but it has never answered the requirements of these two counties, and our industries have left us one after the other. The province of Quebec Lumber Association went over to Dalhousie, and the mills in Bonaventure have crossed over to Bathurst. An effort is now being made by Bishop Ross and the clergy of the province of Quebec to open up new agricultural areas in the Gaspe peninsula for the purpose of keeping the people at home. Our young Canadians there are now migrating to the cities, and to the United States. We want them to remain on the homesteads, and be agriculturists as their fathers were before them. This Gaspe peninsula will never be peopled by other than those who inhabit that area or their descendants, for immigrants from Europe would never consider taking up land in the Gaspe peninsula. They would rather go into the more settled part of Canada or to western Canada. So we consider that eveiy family leaving this Gaspe peninsula is a loss to Canada, and while we are spending money abroad for the purpose of bringing immigrants info this country, for want of proper industries, for want of proper facilities, for want of proper communication with the main markets of this country we are allowing these people to go away, and they will never return. The population of this county the first ten years I had the honour of representing it, at the time we had all these industries in Bonaventure, increased by some five thousand, but in the last decade, after these industries had left the county, our population dwindled, and the natural increase was only eight hundred. Now the time has 
come to bring about a solution of this difficulty. These companies are not anxious to carry on any longer. They are merely complying with the letter of the law, and nothing more.
Sir Henry Thornton has expressed his great optimism for the future of the Gaspe peninsula. He has visited the district himself. He knows the value of its timber limits of 10,000 square miles; he knows the value of its fisheries, he knows the value of its mineral, and he is-willing, if an 'agreement can be brought about with these companies to take over these roads and operate them as part and parcel of the Canadian National system, as they were intended to be operated from their very inception, and as was announced here in 1884 in this House when at the request of Sir Hector Langevin and Sir Charles Tupper monies were voted for the building of a branch line of the Intercolonial from Matapedia to Gaspe, and as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said- in 1911, that to make these railways -pay they should be linked up with the Intercolonial. This has not been done, but the people of Gaspe have faith in the present administration; they have faith in the Minister of Railways; they have faith in the broadmindedness and patriotism of this House and government, and I hope that in speaking as I do, Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken in vain, but that the Canadian National will see that it is in its interest to take over these 200 miles of railway.
We are not asking for the construction of new railways, 'as we are obliged to vote new branch lines for the west; we are merely asking that 200 miles of constructed railway to which the Dominion of Canada and the province of Quebec have contributed in land and money subsidies to the extent of four million dollars be so utilized as to give those people fair and untrammelled access at reasonable rates to the central markets of the country. Sir Henry Thornton has declared that if he took over these railroads to-morrow he would have to cut down the railway rates 25 per cent, which is an admission that the people of Bonaventure and Gaspe have been paying rates on their products for many years past 25 per cent above what is paid on the main line of the Canadian National railway.
I shall say no more, bu't for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope that -when this report is received from Mr. Justice McKeown, if an agreement can be brought about between Sir Henry Thornton and these two companies, the government of Canada will seize the opportunity for the purpose of bringing about a solution of this Long Standing trouble.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Supply-Public Works

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
For operation and maintenance of inspection boats, $10,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is that vote?


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: It is the usual item. These boats are maintained and operated for the use of the staff in the engineering districts engaged on inspectional work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river and tributaries, surveys in connection therewith and settlement of land damages, $35,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This is an old-standing expenditure. Is it a necessary one each year; is it for renewals?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: It is an old expenditure. It is required for the maintenance and operation and dams and sluiceways at points on the Ottawa river and its tributaries. The object is to store the spring floods and augment the low water flows, thus equalizing the run-off of the Ottawa valley throughout the year. This also necessitates the purchase of lands damaged by maintaining reservoir surfaces at high stage during the summer and autumn. For the maintenance and operation of the Timiskaming dam, $7,000 is required:; for the maintenance of Quinze dam, $9,000; for reinforced concrete slab and cut-off wall and rockfill at Timiskaming dam, $13,000; to pay land damages and other claims in connection with the Ottawa river storage, $6,000, making a total of $35,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I never could understand
why the government of Canada should spend so much money for the assistance of the lumbermen on the Ottawa river.


John Warwick King: It is not for the
lumbermen necessarily.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have understood that all this expenditure for sluiceways and dams on the Ottawa river was for the express purpose of helping to drive the logs on the river. Is there any other river in the whole Dominion where an expenditure of a similar character is made for a similar purpose? On the river St. John, and on the St. Croix, which is an international river, and upon all the other rivers that I know of the lumbermen have to provide these facilities for themselves.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is under a misconception. As a matter of
fact, this item is largely for the purpose of maintaining the Timiskaming and Quinze dams. It is rather in the interests of navigation than to assist the lumbermen in their log driving.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would suggest then, that it is in the interest of the power companies.


John Warwick King: And navigation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The power companies on
the Ottawa river are very wealthy companies. Just recently the Ottawa and Hull company was re-financing bonds to the extent of millions of dollars, from which the proprietors of the old company receive very handsome sums of money. My objection to the whole scheme is that this is not a matter of Dominion concern. Navigation on the lower stretch of the Ottawa river cannot be assisted to any great extent by expenditures of this character.
I think it will be found, and I know something of the history of this matter from a former Minister of Public Works in a former government, that the original expenditure was in the interest of the lumbering business. Now it is said to be in the interest of the power company, and I object to the expenditure on that ground.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Monument of Sir WMfrid Laurier, $25,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Has there been a final award yet?


John Warwick King: Yes. The final award has been made to Mr. Brunet of Montreal. He is in Paris now, I think, engaged on the model.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is it proposed to
locate the monument?


John Warwick King: At the corner of
the terrace of the East Block overlooking Connaught Square.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Gallery of Canada, $75,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this the National Art Gallery?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister very briefly, and I must not delay the committee unduly, a complaint that has reached me against the Board of Governors, or whatever they are called, that there is discrimination against artists at outside points, and I am speaking now more particularly of some of the artists in British Columbia, with, I think, almost an
Supply-Public Works

international reputation. My hon.. friend will recall the names without my making any particular distinction. Some that have won great distinction because of their works of art have been unable to get their paintings included in the National Art Gallery. The point I wish to draw to the minister's attention is this: I quite approve of the general principle of very careful choice in works of art, and I know that requires men of experience, knowledge and technique; but I think the National Gallery should, as far as possible, and without doing violence to this principle, have a representation of all sections of the Dominion. A work of art that might portray, for instance, a Pacific coast scene might be different from some eastern scene, but still it would be a contribution to the art gallery. The same thing might be said of an Indian picture from some distant part of the country. While in itself it anight not be quite equal to a picture from the brush of an eastern artist, nevertheless it portrays as the artist sees it the life of that community, crude though it may be, and such pictures should be preserved in the National Gallery. I merely want to suggest to the minister that care should be taken that the administration of the National Art Gallery should be impartial, and that the chief object of portraying the life and scenery of the Dominion should be adhered to as much possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National monument on Connaught Place, $10,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a re-vote. What progress has been made with this work?


John Warwick King: We have asked for competitive designs and are receiving responses from various artists throughout the empire. I think the competition closed on June 11.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Graving docks, $149,600; harbour and river
works etc., $59,170; collection of Public
Works revenues, $4,000; total	$212,770
Champlain graving dock	 70,200
Lome graving dock	 33,400
Esquimalt graving dock	 22,000
New Esquimalt dry dock	 24,000
Richard Burpee Hanson: Where are these docks located?


John Warwick King: At Esquimalt, and Eevis, and there is the Selkirk repair slip. There are two graving docks at Levis.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there any revenue from these docks to cover this expenditure?


John Warwick King: In some cases the revenue exceeds the expenditure. Take the
fMr. Stevens.]
Esquimalt graving dock for which we are asking a vote of S22 000. The revenue in 1924 amounted to $33655, and in 1923 to $21,041. In the case of the Champlain dock at Levis we are asking for a vote of $70,200. The fees collected from this dock amounted to $59,881 in 1924 and $43,491 in 1923. In the ease of the Lome graving dock the fees collected were $22,376, and we are asking for a vote of $33,400. The Esquimalt dock is the one that has probably given us the best returns.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edmundston-public building, $57,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to ask the minister about this expenditure. Has not the site been acquired?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the contract been let and if so to whom, from whom was it purchased, and who is the contractor for the erection of the structure?


John Warwick King: The contract was let in November, 1924, to John Flood Sons, St. John, the price being $55,112. An order was passed on 17th August, 1923; a site having a frontage of 66 feet on Canada street by a depth of 110 feet on Church street, was purchased from Mr. L. A. Dugal for the sum of $8,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the nature of the building? Is it n custom house as well as an immigration office?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The site from the standpoint of immigration and' customs is not a good one. It is a good site for a post office, but it is not near the international bridge, and I think you will have to maintain a station at the end of the bridge as well, unless the government put into effect their new smuggling regulations.


John Warwick King: It was not possible to secure a site at the bridge for a building of this character, and they have a small building at the bridge for an immigration officer, and he spends his time there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The site of the post office was not determined especially by public convenience. It was entirely a matter of political expediency. Mr. L. A. Dugal, the big political boss in that city, had a site to sell.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
Moncton-public building, $50,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the site for this building been selected?


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There is another case where a political boss in the district has a site to sell. Mr. Reid McManus, a member of the legislature and a candidate in the approaching election, is very anxious to sell this siie which is not suitable to the business people. Has it been determined to select this site east of the subway? Because that is where the board of trade and business people of Moncton want the post office, not west of the subway.


John Warwick King: The whole matter is being carefully considered by the department. A number of sites have been suggested. They vary in price. The matter of it being east or west of the subway would be one for careful consideration, I would think. It is true that the business men in the business section would like to see the post office down there, whereas a large number of residents and citizens of Moncton are of opinion it should be beyond the subway, or west. The whole matter is being canvassed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the board of trade
made representations as to a site west of the subway?


John Warwick King: I do mot know
which is east or west.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have protested against the suggested site have they mot?
iM:r. KING (Kootenay): They have protested against the site west of the subway. There are two or three sites west of the subway.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The government owns sites west of the subway which would be preferable to the McManus site.


John Warwick King: Not very suitable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It is possible land may be required for railway purposes, but in the expropriation made for the subway itself there is a considerable quantity of land suitable for small buildings, and I have understood, failing to get the office located east of the subway, that would be preferable from the Standpoint of the business people, instead of the one which the government is being urged to adopt.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montague-public building-alterations and improvements, $5,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: How much was spent on this work last year, if any?


John Warwick King: Last year there was an expenditure in the construction of concrete retaining wall, approximately 78 feet in length by 13 feet in height, along the front of the building, under contract with Mr. J. P. Beer, for the sum of SI,675. Alterations on the second floor of the building and in the caretaker's quarters, are under contract with Mr. Garrick for the sum of $3,032. There is a contract with Mr. \V. Garrick for the installation of a new hot water boiler for the sum of $465, and a contract for the construction of a sewer, with Mr. R. K. Clements for the sum of $785, making a total of $5,957.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion public buildings-'improvements, repairs, etc.. $43,000.
John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I wish to ask a question which has really no relation to the item, but perhaps the minister would answer it under this head. What is the intention of the government with regard to closing the breakwater at Partridge island? This was under discussion before and tenders were called for, but so far nothing has been done. I should like to know the policy of the department.


John Warwick King: That matter is under consideration. We have not placed an item in the estimates for the construction, and the matter is now receiving the consideration of the government. I think that is as far as I can go with my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loretteville-public building, $27,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this under contract?


John Warwick King: Yes, this is under contract. An order in council was passed on the 22nd December 1924, accepting the tender of J. B. Jinchereau et Fils of Quebec at $22,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-Bonavcnture station-electric tractor, 13,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Why should this item be put in the estimates? Why should it not be paid for by the railway?
IMr. KING (Kootenay): We purchase these tractors for the Post Office Department, and they are used for transporting the mail bags from one side of the building to the other.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this done with the Canadian National railway?


John Warwick King: This as done at the request of the deputy postmaster general for the handling of mail at the Bonaventure Station..


Henry Herbert Stevens: lit should be charged to Post Office Department.
Mr. KING (Kootenay); Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-new examining warehouse-improvements
and alterations, $12,000.
Mr. WARD:: What is this warehouse for?


John Warwick King: It is for the Customs department in the examination of goods.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-postal station in St. Denis division, $50,000
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a new vote.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many subdivisions of the post office are there in Montreal and where are they located?


John Warwick King: There are eight or ten. I am not quite certain of the number. This is a new station and this amount is required to complete payment of the building situated on the west side of St. Denis street, purchased from Mr. G. H. Robert for the sum of $24,225, and also to provide for remodelling the building for postal purposes. The figures are as follows:
Purchase of building	 $24,225
Remodelling building	 40,000
Contingencies	 775
Total	 $65,000
The estimate required for this year is $50,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was this purchased at a
private sale or was it expropriated? Was it at the request of the Post Office Department?


John Warwick King: At the resuest
of the Post Office Department. It was a private sale.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did the department have an independent appraisement made?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-Postal station in St. Ann's division, $37,000
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this a new postal station?


John Warwick King: Yes. This amount is required to complete the erection of a

public building on Church avenue for postal and customs purposes. It will be a two-storey brick structure with dimensions of fifty feet by sixty feet, and the estimated cost is placed at $47,000. The lowest tender was $37,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreail-towards purchase of Lavut building for postal station "G", $13,900.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this another new postal station in Montreal? It seems to me they are expanding there very rapidly.


John Warwick King: Yes. This
amount is required as a third payment on the purchase price of the Lavut building, situated on Pine street, between Arcade and Guilbault streets in the city of Montreal for the accommodation of postal station "G".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, et cetera, $115,000.
Mr. SPENCE:: Where is this $115,000 going to be expended?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required for renewals, improvements and repairs in connection with Dominion public buildings in Ontario, including those in the city of Toronto for which in previous years special appropriations were taken. As regards the repairs for this year, I could not give my hon. friend the list. That will develop as the season advances and as the officials report as to the necessities. The expenditures last year ran to many items varying from as low as forty dollars, to the Hamilton -post office, $18,000, London Grand Trunk station mail room, $72, London Chapter House, National Defence, $5,197. It is a long list as my -hon. friend will see.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why are there so many
postal substations in Montreal, when I understand there are only five in Toronto? In area the city of Toronto must be nearly commensurate with that of the city of Montreal, and I understand the revenue in Toronto far surpasses that of Montreal. Why are more postal facilities supplied in Montreal than in Toronto? W'hy this discrimination against Tor3r Toronto?


John Warwick King: They are established on the recommendation of the Post Office officials and the advice of the Postmaster General.


David Spence: There seems to be very
little for Toronto. I see only one for the Department of Agriculture, a building for the Seed branch at Toronto.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: I hope this will
be sufficient to take care of the needs of Toronto for this year.


David Spence: There are items in here for Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and nothing for Toronto. We need public buildings just as badly as they do.


William John Ward: Looking down the list, I
notice we have Hamilton public building, Kingston public building, Kitchener public building, Napanee public building besides this item for Dominion public buildings. It is somewhat confusing to some of us.


George Newcombe Gordon: The first item is
Dominion public buildings, improvements and repairs only, not construction.


William John Ward: But I was asking the minister why there should be this first item simply of public buildings and then later oni we find a number of places with large votes for public buildings. What is the difference?


John Warwick King: These are known requirements. We know that at Napanee the heating and plumbing service will require an expenditure this year, and that is placed in the estimates. There may be a development in one of these stations during this summer. The engineer or the architect may report that the heating apparatus is out of condition and should be renewed. This vote would take care of a condition of that kind.
I cm agreed to.
Haileybury-to pay to the municipal authorities the amount of fire insurance on armoury for the erection of a community hall.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This vote requires some
explanation. I think I remember something about it a year ago. What is the present status of this vote and what is the necessity of it? It seems to me it is intended to make a gift to the community as a result of a fire.


John Warwick King: At the time of the fire in Haileybury the government had an armoury building which they had rented to the municipality to be used for recreation purposes. The citizens had insured the building to an amount of $33,500. When the building was destroyed, the insurance fell due and was paid into the consoldiated revenue fund. Naturally, the people of Haileybury were desirous that the government should reconstruct an armoury or a building of that type that would be again useful for their purposes. We took the view that probably what would be more serviceable would be a post office and customs building. We carried the vote, I think, for two years on the understanding that that would be what would be done. The citizens of Haileybury, however, objected very strenuously to that; the matter was considered very carefully, and finally it was agreed that this money which resulted from the insurance obtained on the building, would be placed at their disposal in order that they might erect a community hall or building that would be suitable for their purposes. The government will not have an armoury there, but we shall have an arrangement with the community whereby the local military units will have accommodation in that hall.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who paid the insurance
premium?


John Warwick King: They did.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Who will have title to
the new community hall?


John Warwick King: I think they would like the title, but I do not know whether they will get it.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I suppose the minister knows that in Ontario there is provincial legislation covering this field. It would be rather a dangerous departure fior this government to undertake the construction of community 'halls, and I dio not see that any good ground has been shown for the vote.


George Perry Graham: I happened to be in (the Department of National Defence when the transaction took pface. The town of Haileybury paid the insurance premiums, insuring the building; and when the money came in I accepted the cheque but was Obliged to hand it over to the Receiver General. I doubt whether there is any similar situation anywhere in Ontario. Haileybury is simply asking that the insurance money be used to construct a building which they want. The Dominion does not insure buildings as a general rule; it does so only in exceptional cases. In Ithis case the town paid the premiums itself and it handed over ithe insurance money, $33,500, rather reluctantly, although there was nothing for it to do but that. At that time I thought that we should be in a position to erect a post office building or something oif that kind, but apparently that :is mot what they want; they want a hall which they can use for the same purposes as they used the drill hall before. I think it is a fair propostion, and I assented to it with the mayor of Haileybury.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I presume that Haileybury paid 'the insurance in the form of rental for the use of the building, and the hazard was thereby increased. It 3s not usual for a community to make arrangements for the rental of an armoury or other public build-
Supply-Public Works

iag and pay the insurance, because the risk is increased the moment the building is put to private uses. It seems to me that the Dominion should own and control any 'building which they erect out of the -public money, and then if tlhey desired to make an arrangement for the rental of alt by the town tihey could do so.


John Warwick King: To construct a building similar to the one they bad would cost us considerably more than $33,000. I think it would involve us in an expenditure of $75,000 or .thereabouts and the department would not feel justified in spending that amount. The town is not agreeable to having a post office and I do not see any reason why we should force a public building on them. There is mo doubt that the town suffered a catastrophe and at the time there was a general feeling to be generous to its inhabitants. I know that the provincial government of Ontario was liberal in its treatment of them; it immediately constructed a new public building in the town and the general desire was to stimulate the people and in that way Show them that there was faith in the community. If the new building is located on land owned by the government we shall see to
13 m. it that the title remains in the crown. Indeed, I fancy that is what will be done; and we should also have some provision made for the accommodation of the local military unit.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Have any plans been drawn up?


John Warwick King: The plans have not yet 'been developed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the town contributing towards the cost or is the Dominion bearing the whole of it?


John Warwick King: We are simply
paying the insurance money.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much is the building to cost?


John Warwick King: We are mot committing oursdves to more than $33,500. If the citizens want to construct a better building they will have to provide the extra money themselves.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister know whether they propose to put up a better building?


John Warwick King: I do mot know.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not understand the mentality of a community that rejects the offer for the erection of a public building in the form of a post office. Is it that they are 
m hopes of getting the $33,000 and a new building besides?


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will find that is what will happen. What post office accommodation is there in that town now?


John Warwick King: The building is rented.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister will find when he -parts with this money that there will be a demand in due course for a public building at. a cost of probably $100,000. He should insist that the money go into a post office, and then i't would be for the greatest good of the greatest number and would save the country considerable expenditures later on.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is it proposed
to construct the new building on the site occupied by the one destroyed?


John Warwick King: I fancy that
would be the intention, -but they have not submitted their plans to us yet. Considering the whole situation carefully, the government, not desiring to become involved in an expenditure of probably $75,000, and taking into account the fact that -the people did n-ot desire a public building, decided that this would be the best way of clearing the matter up.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the minister say that he does not know whether the money is to be expended in a building -to be erected on land owned by the Dominion?


John Warwick King: The plans have
not been settled definitely yet.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Should not the
site be conveyed to the Dominion?


John Warwick King: The site belongsto us.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And the -minister does not know whether or not they propose to build on that site.


John Warwick King: I have not seen
the committee for months. At the time I consulted with them I refused to consider anything but a public building, but later on I decided that in view of all the circumstances the way now proposed was the best means of settling the matter.


Richard Burpee Hanson: This is an unusual vote,
as I think the minister will agree, and he will find that he is establishing a rather dangerous -precedent; for if this vote carries the government will have to hand out a cheque

Supply-Public Works
to the municipality of Haileybury, and there will be no string to it. The money may be diverted to any purpose to which the municipality may see' fit to put it.
Mr .KING (Kootenay):	There is no fear
of that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The vote as it stands does not safeguard the public interest in that respect. I suppose that in equity, if they diverted the money to some other purpose, the government might perhaps recover from the municipality; but they would have some difficulty in doing so. I would suggest that the minister take mighty good care that none of the money shall be paid out until there is a binding contract with the municipality that it shall be diverted to no other purpose. I want to assure the minister that there are communities in other parts of the country that would like to have similar government assistance, and demands will be made on his department from now on for such a system. He can take fair warning that this is what will happen as a result of this precedent.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: What became of the
$35,000 voted last year?


John Warwick King: It was not expended at all.


Milton Neil Campbell: Are there no definite
plans as to the type of building to be erected, and how it is to be controlled? It does seem rather a remarkable situation.


John Warwick King: We have not
developed any plans. As I said before, our original idea was to construct a post office building, but the municipal authorities have requested that the money be voted for the erection of a community hall. Before any payments are made to tljem they will have to submit plans, and an agreement will have to be entered into. I am trying to guard the Dominion against any further expenditure than $33,500.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have they made a request that the government shall erect a public building in addition to this?


John Warwick King: No, that has not
been discussed with them.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, it
does seem to me a most anomalous situation. I think it is an admirab'e thing to erect a community hall-personally I am glad! it is to be that instead of an armoury-but I cannot see why Haileybury should have a community hall any more than five hundred
other places in this country should have similar accommodation. The reasons which the minister has advanced are by no means convincing. They seem to be based simply on some indefinite claim that Haileybury has to this $33,000. Apparently the only basis for the claim is that they paid the insurance which, as we have been told, was paid apparently as rent. That was over and done with when the building was burned down. It would seem to me that naturally the $33,000 insurance would revert to the Dominion government and should remain in the treasury until such time as it is needed in some particular place. I cannot see any special claim that Haileybury has upon this money simply because there was a temporary arrangement with regard to the former building.


George Perry Graham: Surely the hon. gentleman does not understand the situation here. Fire destroyed the town and everybody came to its aid-provincial and Dominion authorities, the Red Cross and other associations, and the public. It was decided that the least the government could do would be to replace the building burned down and leave the town in its former position. The Minister of Public Works is not going that far. He is merely contributing $33,500 to the erection of a building which, if he undertook to replace the old building, would cost the people of Canada twice as much. We are really saving $40,000 by handing back to Haileybury the insurance which was kept up by the municipality. I think it is most reasonable that in order to encourage the people to rebuild in Haileybury we should at least set them an example.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
I cannot agree with the argument of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), for the reason that I do not think there is any obligation on the Dominion to rebuild.


John Warwick King: I do not think so either.


George Perry Graham: There is no legal obligation at all.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: m It is proposed to hand this money over to the town of Haileybury to expend on a building which will belong to them, whereas the former building was the property of the Dominion. I submit that the title should remain in the Dominion.
_Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works

Hamilton armouries-local improvement taxes, $3,397.56.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the government pay local improvement taxes?


John Warwick King: As a matter of
grace we do in many cases where the municipality are making improvements.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am very glad to hear that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or else you do the paving yourself.


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kitchener public building-addition, $30,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: This is a new vote.


John Warwick King: This is required for enlarging the existing building. The work was requested by the general superintendent of the postal service in a letter of October 11, 1923:
In regard to additional accommodation at Kitchener, Ontario, I wish to inform you that this office is congested to an almost unworkable degree. The department therefore requests that an item be placed in the estimates for the next fiscal year to cover the cost of the additional accommodation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-departmental buildings-fittings, etc., $60,000.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this the usual vote?


John Warwick King: Yes. This is required for the purchase anld installation of metal filing cases, Shelving and other fittings in the parliamentary and departmental offices at Ottawa. In 1917-18 the expenditure was 174,000; in 1921-22, $88,000; last year $56,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Are these fittings purchased by tender?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I notice that mo^t of the fittings in this building were purchased from the Office Supply Company. They make very good stuff, but they are very expensive. My experience is that you can do very much better with other concerns. Who supplied the fittings last year?


John Warwick King: The chief manufacturers are the Office Specialty Company and the Steel Equipment Company. They both supplied fittings last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	.
Ottawa-Rideau Hall-alterations and improvements, $14,000.
Milton Neil Campbell: Can the minister give
us the amount spent on alterations and improvements to Rideau Hall within the last

ten years, or if he has not those figures, what has been spent in recent years?


John Warwick King: I have not the
figures for the last ten years. The expenditure this year is required for the construction of a new greenhouse between the palmhouse and the residence, also to pay the balance due on construction of the palmhouse. The estimated cost of the greenhouse is $8,600; heating apparatus, $1,600; benches for flowers in greenhouse, $1,200. The balance due on the palmhouse and improvements to heating system amount to $1,580, and contingencies, $520.


William Irvine: I understand that the term
of the present Governor General is drawing to a close. This might be a good time for us to abolish Government House altogether. I notice that in Alberta they have abolished the Government House, and I think perhaps it is a good thing to do. However, if it is to be maintained, I hope that we shall have the office filled with a Canadian-born Governor General, not that I have any reflection to cast on any Governor General, but-if the office is to be maintained, I hope it will be filled by a Canadian.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I do not
think we ought to let that statement pass unchallenged. I would like to know how it would be possible to select a Canadian Governor General under the present party system of this country, and who would be satisfied with the selection? The "ins" might be satisfied, but the "outs" certainly would not. The main reason however, for continuing this office, is that the Governor General is the one great connecting link between the people of Canada and the Crown of Great Britain, and I hope the present method of selection will never be changed or the office abolished.


George Perry Graham: ? I feel there ought to be a word said about that myself. The present occupant of the office of Governor General is one-	.


Henry Lumley Drayton: One of the real
men.


George Perry Graham: I call him a real man,
not' standing on a pedestal at all, but down among the people. He has visited every part of the Dominion of Canada, and both he and Lady Byng have become of us and with us in a way that is commendable to all the people on this side of the ocean, and on the other side. It is disappointing to a great many of us that they could not see their way clear to remain for another term. His Excellency starts to-morrow on a trip up to the northern

Supply-Public Works
hinterland of Canada, and when he goes back to London, he will prove to be one of the greatest advocates of Canada that she has ever had, not from any superficial knowledge of the country, but because of a very intimate knowledge obtained by meeting the people in every part of this great Dominion. He does not meet them in state, but on these trips he meets them in heart to heart talk and in hand in hand conversation. He knows the aspirations of the Canadian people in the lower as well as in the higher walks of life, If they continue to send men to us like the present Governor General, Canada may be proud and more than satisfied at the present mode of selection.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since the Minister of Railways has just made reference to the advisability of consulting the various classes in Canada, I should like to suggest that there are at least some classes in this country who are not highly satisfied with maintaining an office of this kind. I have no word of criticism whatever with regard to the present occupant of that office; I am speaking solely of the office itself, of the effect it has in this country, and of the expenditure that is involved. Although it may help to unite us to Great Britain, and I am not suggesting that we should sever in any way that union, there is not the slightest doubt that it does tend to perpetuate certain class distinctions in this country that are foreign to the essential democracy which had; existed here in the earlier years, and which some of us would like to see perpetuated. It is all very well to talk about the Governor General knowing all classes of people, but to no small extent a miniature court is maintained! here for the sake of a comparatively small group of people in the city of Ottawa and others who may be able to travel here on special occasions. I think that is being felt throughout Canada by a large number of those people across the country who the Minister of Railways said it is well should be consulted in matters of this kind.
Further than that, in a large number of our papers within the last year or two there have been estimates made as to the expenditure involved in the upkeep of this particular office. It is very difficult to know just what these expenditures are, because they are scattered among so many items in different parts of the estimates. I should say the expenditure is somewhere near $300,000, which is very directly required in connection with the upkeep of this office. In addition to that, we should include interest on the money in-275
vested in Rideau Hall, and we then have an expenditure of about $500,000 a year for this one official. Now one might imagine that this little country of Canada, large in geographical area, but very small in population, and very small in resources, ought at this time to pay some little attention to these huge amounts that are being thrown around on every hand. I urge, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come when we should begin to economize along those lines that are at least essential to the real welfare of the great masses of the people.
Further, may I say a few words with regard to the selection of a new Governor General. None of us like to speak about the matter when the new Governor General has actually been appointed, but now, when no one is apparently in sight, so far as we are informed, why not consider the type of person to be appointed to that office? I would join with one or two others who have spoken in suggesting that we might very well abolish that office here in Canada. I cannot see why the Chief Justice might not fulfil the formal functions that are now filled by the Governor General. If we must have a Governor General in Canada, why should he not be a Canadian? It seems to me that if we are so reduced by our party squabbles in this country that we cannot manage to unite in selecting some outstanding Canadian who would fitly occupy a position of that kind, then the future of this country is dark indeed. Surely there are individuals in Canada who could adequately fill an office of this kind. I cannot see why if we pride ourselves, as we sometimes do, on being one of the independent members of the commonwealth of British people, we should1 continue to occupy a position which is essentially one of subserviency to the Mother Country.
Then again, if we are to have a representative from the Old Country, I do not know why we ought always select someone from the nobility, or from the nearest approach to the nobility that we can find. We have had within the past year or so the rise of a new democracy in the Old Land. We have seen for a short time occupying office in the Old Country the Labour party. I do not know whether they are coming back to office in the near future; I think they will at no distant future. But in any case why should we not have a representative of what might be termed the common people, rather than have sent over to us one who represents the aristocracy? We have claimed in this country to belong to the common people. We consist very largely -of ordinary business people, far-

Supply-Public Works

mere and labouring people. Why should we have sent to us individuals who belong to another type, who are the survivors of the feudalism of the Old Land, which we have tried to get rid of on this North American continent? I should like to suggest that when the government is making any suggestions, or however this matter is arranged, these considerations might very well be kept in mind, and thus we might try to bring our institutions a little more into harmony with the ideals that are generally prevalent throughout Canada.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Much as I would like to
take part in a discussion such as we have listened to, I was going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we are far away from the item, and as I have always tried to observe the rules with very great care, I feel it my duty to keep within the bounds of this vote. I want to make a suggestion that I think will help out somewhat. I want to suggest to the government that as the hour is getting late, the committee should rise, I would have no objection personally if the committee would agree to the balance of the items of this one vote passing, and then rising. I understand the Minister of Railways desires to move a private bill, which I think is quite proper. If the committee would agree, I would suggest that we might let the balance of this vote pass and then adjourn. I think we have done a good day's work.


John Warwick King: That includes all the items for Ontario?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
George Newcombe Gordon: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that the other items in this vote shall pass? Carried.
Ottawa-towards purchase of Daly building $136,000
Ottawa-towards purchase of building for government workshops	 14,100
Port Colborne-public	building	 25,000
Sandwich-public building-improvements to
'heating	 1,100
Toronto-building for	Seed	branch	 45,000


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think before
we carry that, this is a fitting time for the minister to give us particulars of what he is doing in the general re-letting of offices in Toronto in connection with the new building.


George Newcombe Gordon: That does not come
under this vote.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Oh yes.


George Newcombe Gordon: No.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
we will have much trouble about that.


George Newcombe Gordon: There is just the one item for the Seed branch -building.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am going to
ask in connection with the question as to the Seed branch building whether there are not a lot of other 'buildings of far more pressing importance. We are not getting our post office according to the newspapers, but the government is going to do a whole lot of renting in the new building. Can the minister tell us all aboult this new building at the corner of King and Yonge streets? It will not take a minute.


George Perry Graham: I cannot add anything to
what I said the other day.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is no further progress?


George Perry Graham: No.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM moved that the House revert to the order of private bills.
Motion agreed to. .	.
Mr. A. B. HUDSON (South Winnipeg) moved the second reading of Bill 1S4, respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary):	I
should like to know by what authority we are reverting to private bills at this time of night.
George Newcombe Gordon: Under rule 36
the order may be read upon the motion of an hon. member, and put by the Chair. I may say that the reason for this procedure is that the select standing committee on railways and canals is meeting on Wednesday and forty-eight hours' notice is required before a bill can go from the House to the committee. Unless the second reading takes place now this bill will not come before the committee on that day, and extra sittings of the committee will be required.


Mr. SHAW:: When this bill came up a few nights ago I asked for information in connection with it, but the hon. gentleman who is promoting the measure was -not in the House on that occasion. I have received absolutely no notice of this motion at all and consequently I have not before me the documents which I intend to use in opposing this particular measure. I ask therefore that the motion stand.

Business of the House


George Perry Graham: If the hon. gentleman persists in his objection it may mean the killing of the bill.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I think it should be killed.


George Perry Graham: The practice generally is
to allow a railway bill to go to the committee where all parties can be heard either in its favour or against it. All we are trying to do with this bill is to advance it a stage so that it can go to the Railway committee which is the forum fixed by parliament for investigating all details in connection with such as measure as this.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: If I understand the rules of
the House correctly the principle of a bill is approved on the second reading. If the Minister of Railways is prepared to allow this bill to go to the committee on the first reading, then I will raise no objection.


George Perry Graham: This is the second reading. The bill cannot go to the committee on the first reading.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The bill has already had its first reading.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I know it has had its first
reading, but the point is that the principle is approved on the second reading, and I am not prepared to approve it at all.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Suppose the Minister of Railways consents that my hon. friend's objections can be reserved and that we are not committing ourselves to the principle of the bill at all but just sending it to the committee-would the minister agree to that?
Mr. GRAHAMf: Surely. Many a bill goes to the committee that never comes back.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The point of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Shaw) is very simple. He says "I have not my papers and I need to be in possession of them when I object to the principle of the bill." The usual practice is to object to the principle on the motion for the second reading, but supposing the hon. member says; "I will be prepared to advance my reasons at the meeting of the Railway committee"-surely my hon. friend will consent to that course being taken.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Surely.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Select standing committee of Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GRAHAM (for Mr. Hopkins) moved the second reading of Bill No. 187, from the 275i
Senate, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee of Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.
On motion of Mr. Graham the House adjourned at 12.30 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, June 16, 1925