1926-04-07

Mr. W. F. KAY (Brome-Missisquoi):: I
move that the report of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) for the year 1925 be referred to the select standing committee on Agriculture and Colonization.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This motion should be preceded by notice and it may be adopted only by unanimous consent of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to lay on the table copy of an ordter in council in which I know my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), will be particularly interested. I refer to the order in council in relation to the board on tariff taxation and other related matters, in other words, the Tariff Advisory Board. The order in council in question sets forth the personnel and powers of the board. I may mention that Mr. Hector Brown McKinnon of Toronto has been appointed secretary to the board, although his name is not mentioned in the order in council.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: Who are the board?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Right Hon. George P. Graham, chairman, Mr. Alfred Lambert of Montreal and Mr. Donald Gordon McKenzie of Brandon.


Arthur Meighen: What happened to Mr. Daoust?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He asked that he be not considered.



MARITIME RIGHTS COMMISSION-PERSONNEL

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I desire to lay on the table of the House a copy of the order in council appointing the royal commission to inquire into certain matters respecting the Maritime provinces. The personnel of this commission is Sir Andrew Duncan, chairman, Hon. W. B. Wallace and Professor Cyrus Macmillan of McGill University.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: 1.	On what conditions are cattle admitted to Great Britain for grazing and feeding purposes?
2.	What has been the cost to the government of the inspection and supervision in transit of these cattle year by year?
3.	How man3' store cattle have been shipped to the United Kingdom year by year since the lifting of the embargo ?
4.	How many cattle of all kinds have been shipped to the United Kingdom in the same periods?
5.	Have any cases of contagious disease been discovered by officers of the Department in shipments of. store cattle going forward to the United Kingdom since the embargo was lifted?
6.	What percentage of Great Britain's live stock consumption is supplied by Canada?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Synopsis of "Order of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries" (dated 9th March, 1923.)
"Importation of Canadian Cattle Order of 1923".
Canadian store cattle are cattle born and reared in the Dominion of Canada, consisting only of castrated males and spayed females, and intended for feeding purposes, and not for immediate slaughter.
Landed at a port and landing place approved by the minister under supervision of an inspector.
Certificate signed by a duly authorized officer of the Dominion of Canada,
Cattle have been kept separate for three clear days immediately before shipment and examined from time to time by an authorized veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada and no cattle plague, pleuro pneumonia, foot and mouth disease or mange found.
If steamer conveying cattle had within 28 days preceding carried cattle coastwise from any port other than in Great Britain and Canada or has entered such port must be cleansed and disinfected.
Cattle are eartagged and branded with letter C on right cheek.
A declaration by the master of the vessel that the cattle were shipped from a port in Canada and vessel has not entered any port or place outside Great Britain.
A certificate signed by an authorized veterinary officer of the Dominion of Canada that the cattle have been kept separate from other animals and examined daily by him during the voyage and no cattle plague, pleuro-pneu-monia or foot and mouth disease has been

Questions
found also stating whether any cattle have died on the voyage and giving the cause of death.
After landing the cattle are subject to regulations concerning movement of such cattle in Great Britain.
2.	1922-23-
Not including salaries.. ..$	343 45
Including	salaries	 1,104	99
1923-	24-
Not including salaries.. ..$13,564 45 Including	salaries	35,919	12
1924-	25-
Not including salaries.. ..$20,964 98 Including	salaries	 51,574	49
1925-	26-
(To December 31, 1925)
Not including salaries.. ..$22,361 43 Including	salaries	
55,081	583.	1922-23	
1,0681923-	24	
28,1511924-	25	
53,6611925-	26	(to	Feb.	28)	
86,1534.	1922-23	
32,7461923-	24	
59,7961924-	25	
86,5461925-	26	(to	Feb.	28)	
110,040
.5. No contagious disease dealt with under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act or referred to in the British order, has been discovered by officers of the Health of Animals branch in connection with the above shipments.
6. Total meat imported and home grown 6,159,717,000 lbs.; Amount supplied by Canada, 232,716,072 lbs. or 3.8%.
On the basis of values, the percentage share of Canada in the total of imported meat (both alive and dead)-6.87%.


SEIZURE OP VESSEL PESCAVIIA
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Has the government any information relative to the seizure of the vessel Pescawha, and the arrest of Captain Robert Pamphlet and crew off the mouth of the Columbia river by United States revenue officers, and the subsequent conviction of the said Captain Pamphlet and his crew by United States courts?
2.	In view of the provisions of the boundary line treaty of 1846, whereby the Columbia river was made an open waterway for British traders and their goods, is it the intention of the government to take any action to protect the treaty rights of the Canadian people?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	While no communication in regard to this occujTence has reached the government from or on behalf of the owners, master, crew or anyone interested in this vessel, press reports regarding the case were noted at the 14011-1391
time of her seizure and His Majesty's ambassador at Washington was requested to * make inquiries into the matter.
Sir Esme Howard has forwarded reports from His Majesty's consul at Portland in-which it is stated that the vessel, with a cargo of liquor aboard bound for Mexican ports, was seized by the United States Revenue Cutter Algonquin on the 4th February, 1925, at a point some twenty miles off the coast of the State of Washington, between Willapa and Grays Harbour. The captain and crew were brought to Portland and lodged in gaol, but no appeal was made for diplomatic intervention, nor any attempt made by the prisoners to communicate with His Majesty's consul. They were subsequently released on bond, and were ultimately brought to trial before a jury at Portland on the 26th February of the present year. A verdict of guilty was returned against them and the case was immediately appealed, and the appeal is now pending.	[DOT]
2.	As the reported locality of the seizure was in the open sea, at a considerable distance from the mouth of the Columbia river, it is not understood how the rights of navigation in that river secured to British subjects could have been infringed, but if evidence is received of their infraction, suitable steps will be taken to protect them.


RADIO SETS FOR LIGHTHOUSES
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to equip Canadian lighthouses with radio receiving sets?
2.	Is the government aware that in the case of the big bank robbery at Nanaimo a short time ago that the bandits were hiding in their launch close to the Porlier Pass lighthouse that the lighthouse keeper saw said bandits' launch and also police boat passing near by and not knowing of the said robbery failed to notify the police boat of the hiding place, and the bandits escaped, thereby involving thousands of dollars of public money in further search throughout Canada and the United States?
3.	Is it the intention of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to install in certain of the more exposed lighthouses radio broadcasting equipment of sufficient range to communicate in case of emergency with larger centres of population?


Hon. Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	It is not the intention of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to equip all Canadian lighthouses with radio receiving sets.
2.	No.
3.	The following isolated lightstations have means of communication which were primarily-established as aids to navigation.
British Columbia-Dead Tree Pt. Q.C.I.,. radio; Cape Beale, radio phone; Pachena,. radio phone; Carmanah, radio phone; Estevan,
Questions

radio phone; Merry Island, radio phone; Len-nard Island, cable to Tofino.
Quebec-Magdalen Islands, radio.
Nova Scotia-Seal Island, radio; Sable Island, radio; St. Paul's, radio.
Newfoundland-Cape Race, radio; Cape Ray, radio; Belle Isle, radio.


MR. M. O. DURANT
Mr. DOUCET:: 1.	Has Mr. M. O. Durant of the Legal branch, Department of Public Works, been given a promotion recently by the Civil Service Commission? If so, to tv hat grade and at what salary?
2.	Is that increase of salary included in the estimates of the said department for the year 1926-27?
3.	What position did Mr. Durant occupy in the said department before being transferred to the Legal branch ?
4.	Have promotions been given to other members Df the said branch of the department? If so, to whom and at what increase in salary?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes. To clerk, grade 4, $1,500 to $1,800.
2.	Yes.
3.	Stores clerk, Engineer's branch.
4.	J. A. Chasse, by revision, 1st April, 1919, from division IB to junior departmental .solicitor, $2,800-$3,060. Increase $260.
Miss Y. Parent, by revision 1 April, 1919, from clerk 3B to law clerk stenographer, $1,000-$1,080. Increase $80.


WALLACEBURG CUSTOMS AND POST OFFICES
Mr. CHAPLIN (Kent):: 1.	Was a site for a post office and customs office purchased by the Dominion government in the town of Wallaceburg?
2.	If so, in what year was the purchase made, what was the size of the lot, what was the price paid for it?
3.	What rental is being paid for the premises used for customs purposes in Wallaceburg?
4.	What rental is being paid for the premises used for post office in Wallaceburg?
5.	How much money has been spent, other than rentals, by the government, on the buildings used for customs and post office, since the above site was purchased?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) 1910; (b) 60 feet on Nelson street, by ilOO feet on James street, of which 10 feet is reserved for right of way; (c) $3,000.
3.	Nil.
4.	Postmaster provides the space for postal
purposes for which he receives a rent allowance based on the revenue. This allowance for the fiscal year ended 31st March, 1925, was $700.	1
5.	Nil.
	>


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EARNINGS AND OPERATING EXPENSES
Mr. SENN:: 1.	What were the gross earnings of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1925 on, (a) central region: (b) Atlantic region: (c) western region?
2.	What were the operating expenses of the Canadian National Railways for the year 1925 on, (a) the central region: (b) Atlantic region; (c) western region?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	(a) $119,390,408.96; (b) $20,287,613.05; (c) $73,445,226.05.
2.	(a) $98,432,039.53; (b) $23,463,862.70; (c) $67,052,478.24.


ASBESTOS
Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	What quantity of asbestos was mined or produced in Canada during 1925 or the last twelve-month period of which the government has a record?
2.	What amount of this asbestos was manufactured in Canada during the same period?
3.	What amount was exported in the natural or unmanufactured state?
4.	What was the value of the amount exported?
5.	What was the value of articles manufactured from asbestos, or of which asbestos formed the principal part, and imported into Canada during the same period ?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING (for the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1.	Sales of asbestos from Canadian mines in 1925 totalled 290,121 tons valued at $8,995,854 as compared with shipments of 225,744 tons valued at $6,710,830 in 1924.
2.	Complete data as to the amount of Canadian asbestos manufactured into products such as brake-linings, etc., are not available as the companies engaged in this industry use some orude, and some yarns and cloth part of which is imported in that form, although it may have been made from Canadian crude. In 1924, the asbestos products industry in
Canada used:
Asbestos, cloth and yarn-105.152 yards.. ..	$46,632
Asbestos, crude and fibre-75,967 lb	 24,753
Asbestos, paper, corrugated and	plain-
253,300 sq. ft	 5,369
Another large factory for the manufacture of asbestos products in Canada was opened in June, 1924. Data as to the consumption of crude by this plant are not available for publication but the following figures, showing the differences between sales from the mines and tonnages exported in each of the past three years, indicate the growing consumption of asbestos in Canadian plants:
			Calendar Years		
1923	1924	1925Tons	Tons	TonsShipments	from	the	mines... 231,482	225,744	290,121Exports,	as ]	per	customs'	records...	
215,502	204,749	258,017Apparently	used	in	Canada.. 15,980	20,995	32,104
Questions
Asbestos paper and mill board are manufactured on a large scaJle; asbestos roofing of aid kinds; asbestos rigid shingles; asbestos building materials; asbestos cellular, and sponge felted pipe insulations; insulating sheets and
blocks; asbestos brake linings and clutch facings are woven on special looms, necessary for making asbestos textiles; asbestos packings for steam, oil and hydraulic operations.
Canada's Imports and Exports of Asbestos
-	Year ended December 31, 1924	Year ende d December 31, 1925	Imports of Asbestos into Canada:-	lb. 221,266 (a)	$ 98,418 441,300	lb. 222,051 (a)	98,169 350,600Asbestos in any form other than crude, and all manufactures of, n.o.p	
539,718		448,769
Exports of Asbestos from Canada:- Asbestos-				
	tons 107,200	6,297,819	tons 136,750	8,090,106
				
Asbestos sand and waste-	95,089	1,220,070	121,267	1,592,286
foreign origin					
Asbestos manufactures-	(a) (a)	44,132 4,459	(a) (a)	55,572 6,396
				
Total exports-				
		7,562,021 4,459		9,737,964 6,396
				
				
(a) Entered at value only.


BUTTER AND CHEESE GRADING
Mr. BOTH WELL:: 1.	What have been the records of grading dairy produce for export from Canada (a) in percentage of improvement in (1) butter, (2) cheese; and (b) in percentage of both butter and cheese, grading (1) special, (2) No. 1. and (3) No. 2?
2.	How many dairy produce graders were employed in 1925 and where?
3.	What was the total cost of grading butter and cheese in 1925?
4.	What quantities of butter and cheese were graded in 1923, 1924 and 1925. respectively?
5.	What was the cost of grading (a) 100 pounds of butter, (b) 100 pounds of cheese?
6.	Are the grades, as marked by Canadian graders, accepted in the United Kingdom?
7.	Is the total cost of this grading service borne by the government, and if so, is it the intention to so continue this service?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1. (a) 1. Pasteurized butter. 1024-increase in special and first grades over 1923-6.0 percent. Unpasteurized butter, 1024-increase in first grade over 1923-6.2 per cent.
Pasteurized butter-, 1925-decrease in special and first grades as compared with 1924-10.3 per cent. Unpasteurized butter,	1925-
decrease in first grade as compared with 1924 -4.3 per cent.
(a) 2. Cheese, 1924-increase in special and first grades over 1923-6.75 per cent. Cheese,
1925-increase in special and first grades over 1924-1.15 per cent.
(b) Pasteurized butter.	1923	1924	192".Per cent, Special grade...	. 21.2	8.6	2.0Per cent, No. 1 grade...	. 57.8	77.0	7- 'Per cent, No. 2 grade...	. 18.7	13.4	19.0Unpasteurized	butter	1923	1924	1925Per cent, No. 1 grade...	. 62.8	69.0	64.7Per cent, No. 2 grade...	. 34.2	29.2	33.1Cheese	1923	1924	1925Per cent, Special grade...	. .97	.37	.3Per cent, No. 1 grade...	. 77.03 84.38 85.6	Per cent, No. 2 grade...	. 19.78	14.23	13.12. No. of dairy produce graders	Location	Montreal, P.Q	17Quebec. P.Q	1Stratford, Ont	1Toronto, Ont	1Belleville, Ont	1Charlottetown, P.E.I..	1Winnipeg, Man	3Total	253.	Total cost of grading butter and cheese, 1925-$96,628.04.
Questions

4.	Pasteurized butter
No. of boxes graded
1923		 210,533
1924		 467,147
1925		 635,321
Unpasteurized butter
No. of boxes graded
1923		 271,989
1924		 281,155
1925		 187,404
Cheese
No. of boxes graded
1923		 1,458,129
1924		 1,584,359
1925		 1,895,112
5.	Cost of grading 100 pounds of butter and cheese, 1925, 4.664 cents.
6.	Yes.
7.	The total cost of the grading service is borne by the government.
The policy of the department is to make *all inspection and grading services self supporting as soon as well established throughout the Dominion and generally recognized as being of material benefit to the industry affected.
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR ,	RETURNS


CANADIAN PATENTS
Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	How many Canadian patents were issued during the year 1925?
2.	How many were Issued to (a) Canadian citizens, Ob) citizens of the United States; and (c) citizens of other countries?
3.	How many patents were cancelled during 1925?
4.	How many patents were cancelled during 1925 because the patentee failed to have the article so pa tented manufactured in Canada?
5.	Has the government any system of investigation or check to ascertain if articles so patented are actually being manufactured in Canada to meet the reasonable Canadian demand?


NEWSPAPERS AND PERIODICALS
Mr. SIMPSON:: 1.	What was the cost of newspapers and periodicals subscribed for by each department of government during the year 1925, not including those for use in the jeneral reading room of House of Commons or Senate?
2.	What are the names of publications, the numbei of each subscribed for and the place of publication?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY CARS
Mr. LADNER:: 1.	How much lumber was used in the construction of the Canadian National Railway cars during the years 1922 to 1925, inclusive ?
2.	How much of the total lumber used was purchased outside of the Dominion of Canada?

3.	How many million feet, board measure, of southern pine were used for such purpose during the years 1922 to 1925, inclusive?
4.	What percentage of lumber used was of Canadian origin ?
5.	What percentage of douglas fir or other British Columbia woods was used in the manufacture of cars for the Canadian National Railways?
6.	How many cars for the Canadian National Railways, during 1922 to 1925, inclusive, were manufactured in United States; (a) How many are under construction in the United States at the present time; (b) How many are on order in United States at the present time?
7.	What are the values of: (a) The cars manufactured in the United States for the Canadian National Railways, if any, during the years 1922 to 1925, inclusive; (b) cars now under construction in the United States for the Canadian National Railways (c) cars now on order in United States for the Canadian National Railways?
8.	Have any United States built cars been brought into Canada for use on the Canadiah National Railways? If so, was duty paid upon them?
9.	What is the value of cars constructed in Canada for the Canadian National Railways?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: It will require two weeks to answer this question. Perhaps the hon. member will let it stand as an order for return.


POWER SHORTAGE IN ONTARIO
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario and the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario should be given leave forthwith to develop and generate power on the St. Lawrence river at what is known as the Morrisiburg dam, and should also be given power to use an increased flow of water from the Niagara river and so relieve the acute shortage of power in Ontario, and that this House will support the government in taking such immediate action os herein proposed without further delays in accordance with the application of the Ontario government and HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario filed in 1923, 1924 and 1925 with the government of Canada.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, my motion is designed primarily to relieve the very acute shortage of power that now threatens the province of Ontario. Repeated efforts have been made by the provincial government under the Navigable Waters Act to secure fresh sources of power, but the application for a permit to develop power at Morrisburg although made in 1912, is still pending, it having been impossible to get the Dominion authorities to come to a decision. To-day Ontario depends absolutely on cheap light and power, and the total capital investment in the undertaking amounts to $241,000,000. The Privy Council has decided that, subject to rights of navigation, the surplus waters of our rivers and international streams, the beds

Power Shortage in Ontario
of the rivers, the banks and the rapids belong to the provinces but there has been nothing but delay by the Dominion government in dealing with the application of the government of Ontario to develop further power. The only available hydro sources are in the Niagara river, where a slight additional diversion of water may be possible by arrangement with the United States, the St. Lawrence river and the Ottawa river.
I raised this question last session on June 24, and in the course of a somewhat extended debate the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Graham, admitted that the application of the province had been on and off before the Public Works department since 1913. He said there was a difference of opinion between the engineers regarding the site for the Morrisburg dam, one opinion favouring a site below the rapids opposite Barnhart island and the other a site above, at Morrisburg. But the engineers agreed that the plans filed by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario were practical from the engineering standpoint, the financial standpoint and the power standpoint. Why is it * that no action has been taken by the Dominion authorities to deal with this application? As I have said, the capital investment in the Hydro Electric development of the province of Ontario represents $241,000,000. This all belongs to the taxpayers of the province and is earning interest and sinking fund. By means of this development cheap light and power is available to the people and to industry. As a result of cheap light and power we find there has been a wonderful development in the Niagara district, various big industrial concerns pulp and paper and chemical and various other by-product industries having been attracted there by reason of those facilities. As a result of this system the cost of electric light is very low; the average household bill amounts to only about 86 cents. We should utilize the public resources of this country for the benefit of our own people. If any municipalities are suffering from the lack of cheap light and power, it is the eastern municipalities of Ontario. They did not see fit to co-operate with this movement in 1911, and have only recently decided to come into it at all, with the result that they are now getting the benefits which the rest of Ontario has had for years. The towns on the St. Lawrence found it very difficult to get industries because of this lack of cheap light and power. While not wishing to take up the question of politics, it was very fortunate for the province that when the
Chippawa power development was under way the present government was not in office, because if they had been that work would not have been proceeded with. It was the Conservatives who sanctioned that work, under a very similar application to that which is now before the House.
We are told that this scheme cannot be undertaken because it will interfere with navigation. It does not interfere with navigation; it is all in the province of Ontario. The leases and proposed works are in the province of Ontario; the surplus waters, the bed, banks and rapids of the St. Lawrence river, subject to navigation, belong to the province of Ontario. The very able Premier of Quebec, Mr. Taschereau, has taken a strong stand on this question; he says that the bed of the St. Lawrence and the rapids and the banks of these international streams belong to the provinces, and there is a recent decision of the courts supporting that contention. He is big enough to protect the rights of Quebec, and we hope that this government will do something to protect the rights of the people in this magnificent territory. I am glad to see that this privilege is to be extended to the other provinces, because the principle should be applied to all provinces, not merely to one or two.
How does it.come about that this present government is holding up the work? It is not a question of navigation; I raised the matter in the House on June 24 of last year, when the then Minister of Railways, Mr. (Graham, was here. None knew better than he the conditions in the towns on the St. Lawrence, but he also raised the question of navigation. With what result?-to hold up this work. All the reports received, reports of engineers, reports of the Hydro Electric Power Commission and others, said that this dam would not interfere with navigation. The very engineers who constructed the Chippawa development, which cost $65,000,000 and which is now generating 600,000 horse-power, reported that this Morrisburg dam would not interfere with navigation. Then the Minister of Railways got out from under the proposition by saying that the question should be referred to the joint engineering board investigating the St. Lawrence waterway. That, however, is a separate proposition entirely. Cheap light and power for our province is more important than the waterway feature. The most important thing to the people of Ontario is to stop the exodus, get industries, create work and solve the unemployment question, and this is a
Power Shortage in Ontario

Power Shortage in Ontario
in accord, and the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario, from the .practical standpoint, with the experience they have behind them, would appear to me to be the body best entitled to speak as to how the whole thing should ibe managed. Of course I am aware that the responsibility of the Dominion is primarily from the standpoint of navigation. The navigation feature of this enterprise is a big feature, but I do not think I could ever Ibe persuaded that it is the major feature. The major feature is the power development, however we may cover it up under the lee of better navigation and so forth. Great advantage will come from better navigation of the St. Lawrence in the territory affected by the development, but it is comparatively meagre when compared with the commercial harvest ithat is expected to be reaped from the great potential power. I feel that the utmost consideration should be given to the views of the Hydro Electric Commission in this matter. They have undoubtedly made a success of the pioneering in power enterprises in this province. What they have done is to-day the outstanding example to the whole world of what can be achieved in the matter of great power development. I would be very sorry to see, in the first place, any plan adopted wh ch is not in full harmony with the experience and matured opinions of that body, but I would be equally disappointed to find that by the interposition of a hopeless complex or endless devolution of machinery the aspirations of the .people of Ontario for power from this enterprise are indefinitely postponed.
This question has been indefinitely postponed. It was taken up in 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925 and now we have reached the year 1926. I suppose we shall reach 1927 or 1928 before there is any report from the gentlemen who have been appointed to settle this question.
I cannot speak too strongly of the power shortage in the province of Ontario. So acute is this shortage that the city of Toronto, through the Hydro Electric Power Commission, will be forced in a very few months to *spend $10,000,000 in the installation of a steam plant to generate from 75,000 to 100,000 horse power, to take care of the peak load and extra power requirements of that city alone. If the proposed dam were going to cost ten million to fifteen million dollars, as some of the harbour improvements schemes of Canada have done, it might be a different thing. But this proposition is surely an Ontario government scheme to be carried out under the Hydro Electric Power Commission, and it is not going to cost the people of Canada one cent. Speaking on this phase of the question in 1925, I said, as reported by Hansard:
Let me emphasize that no citizen of Ontario has been taxed for this great undertaking. They pay no direct tax for this great public boon. You have never seen a cent on your tax bill for this development. The money for capital interest and sinking fund is paid by the direct consumers of power. In Toronto alone it has saved the ipeople during the pest twelve or fourteen years $31,000,000. If this movement had been under private ownership that $31,000,000 would have gone in dividends to shareholders. There are no dividends in the hydro-electric movement. Power >is supplied at cost to the people, and this great boon of cheap electric light and power,

which was brought about under the policy of the late Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck, with the co-operation of the municipalities of the province, has been a revelation; it is without a peer in the world to-day. With the exception of the provincial grants towards the construction of rural distribution systems -and such grants, like those for good roads, agricultural schools, etc., are made in order to promote agriculture-every portion of the cost is fully met in the bills paid by the consumers of the electrical energy, and by them alone. Those who receive the service are the only ones who pay for it, and such payment is made in conformity with a system of charging that permits an annual adjustment with consumers on the basis of power alt cost. Electrical energy, once a luxury, has, in Ontario, been so reduced in cost that it has become a common commodity for the service of all. It is the power of the people made usable for the people by the people.
The most important problem before the people of Canada to-day is the problem of cheap light and power. This great boon is not intended solely for the benefit of the urban centres, but for the benefit also of the rural districts. The province of Ontario has shown the other provinces what can be done for the benefit of the people by the development of water-powers. Starting in 1910 with the distribution of
1.000	horse-power supplied to a few municipal it ies, by 1915 the movement had increased .to such an extent that 100,000 horse-power was required to meet the demands of the many municipalities that were taking advantage of cheap light and .power. Five years later the Hydro Electric Power Commission was generating
350.00	horse-power, and to-day it is maintaining a connected load of 760,000 horse-power.
The commission arranged for an additional power supply from the Canadian Niagara Power Company of
50.000	horse-power and from the Toronto Power Company of over 25,000 horse-power. Subsequently, in August, 1917, it	purchased	outright	the Ontario	PowerCompany with	its plant	capacity	of 160,000	horsepower, which was increased to 180,000 horse-power in 1919, and, in December, 1920, acquired the Toronto Power Company, with its	plant of	over 125,000	horsepower capacity.	In 1920	the load	was 356,000	horsepower. The new Queenston-Chippawa development provides for an ultimate development of 600,000 horsepower. There is possible to-day a development of700.000	horse-power under the plans of the Hydro Electric Commission. At the present time the commission is operating twenty separate developments which have a potentiality of over a million horse-power.
The people of the province of Ontario are watching what is taking place. They are watching the federal government and the provincial government to see what the outcome of their policy is going to be in connection with the development of hydro-electric power. They want to see who it is that has been retarding the development of power not only in eastern Ontario but in the western part of the province as well. Nothing is more calculated to carry out that most desired movement to keep the farmer on the farm than the provision of cheap light, heat and power. In many parts of the province of Ontario the farmer is to-day getting these conveniences owing to the policy which was inaugurated by the late Sir James P. Whitney. This policy is being carried out in the face of considerable opposition. I do not know anybody who did more to retard the growth of this movement in the province of Ontario than did the Hon. E. C. Drury during the four years of his administration, and in this he was aided and abetted by the commission appointed to inquire into the work of the Hydro Electric Commission and in effect to destroy the whole movement. The people got rid of this anti-hydro government.

Power Shortage, in Ontario
In conclusion may I state that I move this resolution with the object of getting something done. It is all very fine to have seven or eight bodies of men drawing their salaries, because that is about all they ever do. They never provide any power supply so far as I can find out, and never do anything practical. The only commission that has accomplished anything worth while in Ontario is the Hydro Electric Power Commission, they have $240,000,000 invested, every dollar of which is earning money and they are paying their fixed charges and interest on the sinking fund.
Premier Ferguson of the .province of Ontario made an address in Toronto recently, on the power shortage and the Toronto Globe gives the following report of his remarks:
In a graphic illustration of the savings effected by the network of provincial hydro lines, he said that last year the hydro distributed 781,000 horsepower, which equalled the energy of 7,800,000 tons of coal. Calculating coal at $5.50 per ton, Ontario had kept in the province $43,000,000 that otherwise would have gone across the border, and made a net saving in fuel expenditure of $23,000,000 last year. Ontario occupied her supreme position as an industrial province by reason of its progress in hydro development.
"The future of Ontario," Mr. Ferguson said, "is wrapped up in this hydro-electric enterprise as in no other phase of our provincial life. . . . We have reached a position in our hydro development where we have got to give some serious thought to the future. The situation is rather a critical one. We have exhausted the water available at Niagara. We have exhausted many of our internal waterfalls and power developments, and we find we are going to have a shortage of power supply. Away down in the east, tumbling to the sea unused, is tremendous unharnessed energy on the St. Lawrence. The province of Ontario has insisted, and is still insisting, upon our right to secure the advantage that will come from development on the St. Lawrence. And I promise you this: that if you will forgive me many other things and keep me in power a while I think we will secure the right to that development."
The people of Ontario want action to relieve the power shortage, not politics. It has been fortunate that poilitics have been kept out of the hydro administration. The Toronto Globe in a series of editorials urges the government to carry out the Morrisburg undertaking. An editorial in the Globe of December 14. 1925, reads as follows:
The right way to deal with the situation is the Beck way-the way that has been tried, and tested, and proved. Let Ontario continue to develop her own water-power, on the St. Lawrence river as elsewhere, wholly for the benefit of the public.
But if the Beck Morrisburg plan is to be followed successfully it is high time that Premier Ferguson and Mr. Magrath bestir themselves as well.
I agree that it is high time that they did something.	*
The threatened general shortage of power-and particularly the situation in Ontario-cannot be solved except by prompt resolute, effective action.
That is what my right hon. leader stated last June when the present government was making a football of this question. The Globe says:
The course seems clear. The greatest undeveloped water powers of Ontario flow by her shores in the St. Lawrence river. The courts have decided that the provinces control the situation. Why does not the government of Ontario at once notify Ottawa of its intention to proceed to develop power at the banks of the St. Lawrence and call upon the federal government to give consent as a matter of form?
The government of the province have gone ahead with the undertaking. The Navigable Waters Protection Act requires that before any work is undertaken plans and profiles be filed with the department. But 4 p.m. in this case the government owns the banks, the rapids and the bed of the river to the centre of the river and they have the power to go ahead.	The St.
Catharines Standard, it will be remembered, was published up to the time of his death by Mr. W. B. Burgoyne, a prominent public-spirited citizen of that town. Recently the Standard printed the following editorial on the subject of power shortage:
Action Required
The Toronto Globe this morning, calling attention to the inevitable shortage of power in Ontario, sounds a clarion call for action on the part of the Ontario government at once. In effect, our Toronto contemporary says that, the courts having decided that the provinces control the situation as to water-powers, Premier Ferguson and Chairman Magrath of the Hydro Commission should notify the Dominion government that Ontario proposes to proceed with the development of the St. Lawrence. The advice is sensible and the project is urgent.
The Standard last week scouted the idea that this province should contract with Sir Herbert Holt s interests in Quebec for a supply of power to Ontario. It had been reported in an interview that the Montreal interests were prepared to provide Ontario with 200,000 horse-power from Cedar Rapids, presumably on a longterm contract, which would most surely hold back any development scheme of the St. Lawrence which has been proposed in this province. Premier Taschereau of Quebec, by an announcement following the interview, at once quashed the suggestion that Ontario should buy power from Quebec private interests when he declared that that province had no notion of abolishing the 50-cent horse-power tax on power exported from that province. With the sources of power at our own door, Ontario public sentiment would never endorse paying tribute to Quebec for power required.
The Globe takes exactly the same position as this paper. The Beck plan is best; let it be adopted and carried out. This province can hardly trust to the altruism of Sir Herbert Holt in such an important matter, nor can this province, with its great Hydro system, afford to show hesitation about further development required for power, by contracting with private interests for an increased supply of electric energy. All these suggestions as to securing more power come from enthusiasts who never lined up with Sir Adam Beck, but were always opposed. That in itself is sufficient to cause suspicion as to the merits of the pro-
Power Shortage in Ontario

posed purchase from Sir Herbert Holt. The people of Ontario will watch with the closest interest the future action of the Ontario government in this most important matter. Valuable time is being wasted in preventing the threatened shortage of power, and yet the government has every legal right to go ahead. It it time for action.
Then a meeting composed of representatives of 278 hydro municipalities of the province passed a resolution calling the attention of both governments to this matter. The mayors, reeves and clerks of the different municipalities concurred in the resolution passed by the rural municipalities on the power shortage. I do not see the United Farmers of Canada represented in this House to any great extent.	The number in this
chamber have been reduced to two or three. In the last House they did not take much interest in this programme and are not likely to now. We have in the Old Country an example of what can be done in the development of electrical power. According to a press despatch which I have here I see that Premier Stanley Baldwin intends to have a national policy and to electrify the whole of Great Britain. I quote the heading of this article:
Electrical Britain now is Objective of Premier Baldwin.
Outlines Planned whereby special Control Board will be established.
The following paragraph is of interest:
The necessity o-f providing electrical energy in greater quantities and at a cheaper rate has been the preoccupation of every government and parity since the war. The existing energy is provided in part by the municipalities and partly by private enterprise, which has resulted in the employment of differing systems and voltages and widely divergent prices for current.
So far as Canada is concerned I think the time has come for definite action in this regard. This question should no longer be made a political football, and notwithstanding any law, usage, custom or statute that may.be cited to the contrary, (here is no reason why the Ferguson government should not be allowed to go ahead and! develop their own property for the benefit of the people of Ontario. Not by the wildest stretch of the imagination can it be argued for a moment that the use for electrical purposes of water at the Morrisburg dam can interfere with navigation. The people of the United States are waking up to the importance of electrical development and at the present time the state of New York is considering a proposition to generate power. Nor are they waiting for the federal government to take the initiative. Private concerns in the state of New York are anxious to develop power there, but the legislature has taken a firm stand1 that it will

preserve the waters of the state for the use of the municipalities and of the people generally. They are following the example of Ontario in this regard and are developing their watc-r power for the benefit of industry. They are of the opinion that such development can have no injurious effect on navigation, and there is no reason in the world why the development of power on the Morrisburg dam should interfere with navigation on this side.
Shortly before his death, Sir Adam Beck, who had a great admiration for my leader (Mr. Meighen), expressed his appreciation of the attitude which that right hon. gentleman had taken on June 24 last in support of this Morrisburg proposition. If the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) were familiar enough with the hydlro-electrie situation in Ontario I am sure that he would see the force of the argument I am making to-day. The trouble is that there are too many boards and commissions looking into this power matter. The Conservative party when in power had one board, but to-day there are so many commissions that they are crowding out one another. I may say there are so many boards and officials they are like Virgil's army, so crowded that they had not room to use their spears. It is pretty much the same in this regard, with the multitudinous boards investigating the matter. I do not know what they are doing apart from drawing their salaries.
I was not aware that this matter would come up to-day. I should have liked the Minister of Railways to have a little more time to look into it fully, for I realize that having *been at the head of his department for so short a time he cannot possibly be posted on the whole subject. I know that he has been in the province of Ontario where he has seen the benefits that are enjoyed by the people from a system of cheap power and light. Let me assure him that there is no politics whatever in this hydro-electric movement; nor has there been any political interference with the administration of the hydro-electric of Ontario since its inception. That explains its gigantic success. A terminal warehouse in which there will be, when completed, an investment of some $8,000,000 is about to begin operations on the harbour front of Toronto and it will depend! entirely upon electrical power. Where that power will come from I do not know, because by the end of this year there will be no supply left. As the premier of the province has said, the only place to which they can look for waterpower is the St. Lawrence, where millions

Power Shortage in Ontario
of tons of white coal are annually going to waste. Is Ontario simply to mark time? Is that province to stand still while the states of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and New York forging rapidly ahead with cheap power? The system of hydro radials in the province was throttled by the late Drury government, who would have done the same thing with the hydro-electric if the people had not got rid of them. It was a blessing to the province the day it turned out of power that farmer government in Ontario. That administration appointed commission after commission to investigate the hydro and1 they were appointed solely to act as the hangman and the undertaker of the whole hydro projet and their efforts only tended to jeopardize and destroy the $241,000,000 which the people had invested! in the enterprise. I trust that the Minister of Railways will look into the whole subject between now and the time the estimates are under consideration, and that the government will withdraw its opposition to the issuing of a permit authorizing the government of Ontario to go ahead with the proposed development. I am sure that the provincial government would give a guarantee that no development that might take place at Morrisburg would interfere with navigation. All the water used there wmuld return to the river, so that navigation could not possibly be impaired but would be much improved.
Some of the most eminent engineers on the American continent, Messrs Acres and Gaby, both Canadians, made a complete success of the Chippawa power enterprise, which was ten times as difficult as the Morrisburg undertaking, and if the government of Canada did not raise any objections to that development on the navigation score I do not see why they should put obstacles in the way of development on the Morrisburg dam. For the reasons I have stated I move, seconded by the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), that the resolution be adopted.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South Yoi-k):: I
desire to comment briefly on the motion which my hon. friend (Mr. Church) has moved with regard to wider development of water-power on the St. Lawrence. I think I may claim to know a good deal about public ownership and the benefits that have accrued therefrom, not only in this country but in other parts of the world, and I venture to say that nowhere has there been so outstanding a success in public ownership as is to be seen in the hydroelectrical development in the province of Ontario. Sir Adam Beck was called in his
lifetime the apostle of the public ownership of hydro-electric development in Ontario, and within a few weeks of his death he was canonized: he has now attained to sainthood in the realm of public ownership. Associated with him in that work was Sir James Whitney, then Premier of Ontario, who gave him every encouragement. When Sir Adam went to Sir James for the money, the latter said, "All fight, Adam. How much do you want?" The amount having been named, Sir James added, "The money is yours; go ahead." Now Sir Adam has performed his work, and it is the greatest example we have of public ownership undertaken as such at the start. Not only is public ownership in regard to the development of electric energy an unqualified success in Ontario, but it has set the pace for other electric power companies in Canada, and they are all trying to distribute power at as cheap rates as are enjoyed by the people ol Ontario. It ought to be an encouragement to my friend the Minister of Railways (Mr Dunning) that in making a great success oi the National railways, as I am sure he will try to do, he will have the satisfaction of making transportation cheaper in Canada than it is in any other country.
While some reasons may be advanced for the delay that has taken place in dealing with the application of the province of Ontario to develop power at Morrisburg, I do not think they are at all convincing, and I am going to tell the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways that something is being done now which will compel them to take action in this matter. Within the past few weeks announcements have appeared in the press of a great navigation proposition in connection with the Georgian bay ship canal, and the government are being urged to approve the plans of the scheme, which also includes power development. Therefore I say the government have got to take these two proposals together, and they ought to announce forthwith, even if there is a navigation reason with respect to delaying the St. Lawrence development- which I do not altogether accept-that they will issue the two orders at once; for they cannot grant the Georgian bay ship canal application without granting the application of the province of Ontario for the Morrisburg development. I do not know of any sufficient reason for further delay in connection with the latter scheme, for if there are great water-powers adjacent to Ontario at Morrisburg, there are still greater water-powers on the Ottawa river here, and these will go with the Georgian bay ship canal project. The leading promoter of the Georgian bay ship canal
Power Shortage in Ontario

is a constituent of mine, Sir Clifford Sifton. Of course, I only know what I have read in the newspapers, but according to the press announcements he and his associates are urging the government to approve their plans. I *believe the government are going to grant approval, and if they do they will have to grant the application of the government of Ontario for its St. Lawrence development. We want the power that can be generated there. I am sure the erection of the necessary works would not interfere with navigation. Therefore, a settlement ought to be effected immediately by negotiating with the United States, as undoubtedly there is urgent need for more power in Ontario, and our nearest source of further supply is at Morrisburg. What we want in this country is more industries. Indeed, I would say that we do not want the tariff so much as we want industries, and the way to get them is to give them cheap power. At present there is a power shortage an Ontario, but with the development on the St. Lawrence and near Ottawa there will be enough power to drive all our factories and light all our houses, with perhaps a surplus that can be delivered elsewhere. What I am putting up to the government is their duty, in view of the urgency, to make early provision to overcome this shortage of power.
My hon. friend who preceded me (Mr. Church) spoke about what Mr. Stanley Baldwin is doing in Great Britain. He has introduced legislation to develop power from steam plants at pit head. This is to be a national undertaking, but the electrical energy is to be distributed through private companies. Well, he may start with public control of those distribution companies, but I am satisfied that eventually he will have to resort to public ownership. I think that before long we in Canada may have to generate power from steam plants at our collieries. In fact, they are already doing this in the United States. I want to tell my friends from Nova Scotia that the other day I put a proposal to them that I think they ought to take up. The province of Nova Scotia has enormous quantities of coal and- ranks second to Alberta in this respect. Now, the provincial authorities of Nova Scotia ought to begin right away to generate electric energy near their coal mines and distribute it. At present long distance transmission is not feasible beyond about 600 miles, but science is devoting attention to this phase and in a short time I am convinced that you will be able to convert your coal into electric energy and send it a thousand miles. That is another development of science that will be available before long, and if we 
do not take advantage of these discoveries we will be blocking progress.
To-day Ontario is suffering from a scarcity of power, and if she has to generate electricity from coal I do not know how she will be able to stand the coal bill. We cannot bring our coal from Alberta, although great quantities are available there. The people of Alberta, too, may have to find a market for their coal by turning it into electricity and distributing it.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Is my hon. friend aware that electrical power has been developed for years in the way he suggests at two points in Nova Scotia?


William Findlay Maclean: The Premier of Nova Scotia told me the other day that he was prepared to take up the question of developing electrical energy from coal. Already the Americans are utilizing some of their coal in this way, and the great competitor of Canadian hydro-electric energy may come from the United States, because electricity generated from low priced coal is almost as cheap as hydro-electric power. That is another reason why the government should act in this matter.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING

A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bill:
An Act for granting to His Majesty a certain sum of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1927.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Church with respect to power Shortage and the extension of hydroelectric development in Ontario.
William Findlay Maclean: I rather regret,
Mr. Speaker, that while I had a light house when I began, it is still lighter now. I hope the House will fill up, because this is the

Power Shortage in Ontario
most important issue in* Canada to-day. The question of waterways is of supreme importance both here and in the United States, and all the world is watching to see what will happen. I hope' the government are watching as well, and that they will do their part in the Morrisburg development.
Let me tell you why we want the Morrisburg project developed right away. When it is completed it will give a thirty foot channel to lake Ontario, and make the good city of Toronto an ocean port. When Toronto becomes an ocean port our friends in Mont-.real will have to look out. Not only will Toronto become an ocean port but Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and other lake cities will follow. When the Georgian bay canal is finished, ports on lake Huron and the Georgian bay will also become ocean ports. The late John Haggart, when Minister of Railways, told me in this House that it would not be long before the engineers dealing with navigation found a way to canalize the western plains through to the Rocky mountains. That is all in connection with this question; it may be a pipe dream, but the development of the St. Lawrence waterway is coming fast. That development, however, may be put in the background by the Georgian bay ship canal, because the plans provide for a channel at least-25 feet in depth, and for the development of over 800,000 horse-power. Other than the development at Niagara Falls, that will be the greatest horse-power development in the world, according to recent statements which have not been contradicted.
I should like the minister or the Prime Minister to tell the House now whether it is his intention to approve the plans of the Georgian bay ship canal and not to approve the Morrisburg dam and the development of power at Morrisburg for the benefit of the people of the whole of Ontario. We want not only the Morrisburg development, but the development further up the Ottawa river where 800,000 horse-power are available. This is one of the prime questions in this country and the government must deal with it. They may say that they are proceeding as fast as their predecessors did in the matter; but that is not enough. The world is moving faster now, and nothing proves that so much as the development of public opinion in the United States in favour of the improvement of the St. Lawrence waterways so as to allow ocean steamers to go right up to lake Superior. That being the case, I am trying to support as well as I can the position taken by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) who has had this matter up before.
The people of Toronto, the whole legislature of Ontario, are behind it, and every other province in the Dominion ought to be behind Ontario because, as I said before on the Address, Ontario is leading the world in connection with the production of electrical energy at cost and with the element of profiteering eliminated. The sin of the war was not so much the war itself as the profiteering that was done during it. Up. to the present, every public service has been associated with profiteering, but we in Ontario have set the example of taking profiteering out of the development of electrical energy and we have succeeded in doing so. We have set an example to the people of England, to the people of the United States who are now going into this new idea of public ownership. It was once said that it was to the disgrace of the people of Ontario that they favoured public ownership, but it is the great principle of the world to-day and Ontario is showing mankind how to develop and carry on public services without profiteering.
The farmers of Ontario have been given electric light, but they want more. They want power; they want heat, and minor heating for small rooms at certain seasons of the year can be got out of electrical development. We have large stores of power. We have the power at Morrisburg; we have 800,000 horsepower on the Ottawa river, and I am going to insist in this House that when the Georgian bay canal is developed' with all this horsepower, the people of Canada shall have the first call and it shall not be exported. I will also insist that Ontario, as a border province associated with Quebec, will get her full share of that power.
I wanted the Georgian bay canal to be carried out as a public ownership proposition, but I understand those who owned it sold it to certain people who are going to develop it. I will tell whoever undertakes the development of electrical horse-power on the Ottawa river that it must not be exported, but must be used in this country divided between Ontario and Quebec. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who is to answer on this question, is the best informed man in this House on the condition of the negotiations now going on between the government of the United States and the government of Canada regarding the St. Lawrence waterways. I had hoped to see him file papers on this question, but they have not come down yet, and I shall wait with interest his announcement in regard to the waterway development and the power that will com* from it. I do
Power Shortage in Ontario

not know where the Prime Minister is; he is probably engaged somewhere else just at present, 'but I hope we shall get a declaration to-day from the government on this supreme issue which concerns the development of the St. Lawrence waterways, associated with which is the development of hydro-electric energy in connection with those waterways both on the St. Lawrence river at the front and on the Ottawa river north of here. What goes to the Georgian bay canal in the way of development will also go to the development at Morrisburg for power at the waterfront there. The two things cannot be separated; they ought to go together.
Before this session is over I intend to expand my argument along the lines I 'have indicated in the House to-day. It is with great pleasure that I rise to support the resolution of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest in connection with the Morrisburg development, and I hope we shall get not only the dam put there for the development of power, but associated' with it the construction of the St. Lawrence eanail so that steamers of at least twenty-five foot draught can go into lake Ontario. By that time or very soon after we shall have the Welland canal deepened to thirty feet so that we shall have inland seaports, power at cost, and we shall have taken the profiteering out of the development of power. As I said before Ontario has led the world in connection with this great principle, and the two names associated with it are Sir Adam Beck and Sir James Whitney who had the courage to show all the world how profiteering could be taken out of great public services, and how great public services could be given not to one or many, but to all the people of this continent because it applies to the whole continent. It is the greatest example of political advancement in the history of the world and I hope we shall get a satisfactory answer from the Minister of the Interior when he makes his reply.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, I am replying on behalf of the government simply because I have been associated with the Right Hon. Mr. Graham who was delegated by the government to conduct negotiations in connection with the solution of the waterways' problem on the St Lawrence reaches. Power development is a matter which the government have delegated to the Department of tthe Interior and with that I am very familiar. It will be sufficient for me to say that I agree with everything that has been said with respect to hydroelectric development in Ontario. What both

hon. gentlemen "have said about it is undoubtedly true, and there is certainly a demand for increased development, particularly in the eastern part of Ontario. I have discussed this matter very frequently with the engineers, not with Mr. Gaby, but with Mr. Acres, whom I know very well and later with ML Magrath, and I have had a good deal of correspondence with Premier Ferguson with respect to it. I have made no move at any moment without the full knowledge of the Ontario government and the hydro-electric officials. That is the only way in which a real understanding of the matter and real progress can be made. It is correct that an application has been made on behalf of the Hydro-Electric Commission. May I say that there is no dispute so far as this government is concerned with respect to the ownership of *the water-powers, or no dispute as to the ownership of the bed of the streams out to the point where the international boundary intervenes. So far as I know this government have never raised any question as to ownership. Nor does this government raise any question as to the right of Ontario to develop that particular power or any power along that reach. The situation in that respect is identical with the situation at Niagara which the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr Church) has mentioned. The only difficulty, then, is a difference of opinion between the engineers who prepared the plans for the Morrisburg development as to whether there should be one or two developments on the international reach there. So far as I am aware that is the only difference that exists Mr. Bowden, who recently died, took very strong ground in that particular. He was very thoroughly convinced as to the correctness of his position, and we must all admit that the late Mr. Bowden was an engineer of national repute whose views carried considerable weight. In saying that I do not wish to express any criticism of the engineers who planned the great hydro development at Niagara and carried it to so successful a conclusion. I think any decision at which those engineers may arrive merits attention. Nevertheless that is the situation in which the federal government found themselves, and they took immediate steps to create a board that would settle the question definitely and finally. That board is now at work.
My hon. friend (Mr. Church) is complaining about the multiplicity of boards here in Ottawa. They have little or nothing to do with the real settlement of the question That will be done by a board of engineers three appointed by this government and three

Power Shortage in Ontario
by the government of the United States, w'ho will come to a definite conclusion on the matter, and we have the promise that their report will be in the hands of the two governments by June at the latest. I may say on behalf of this government that the moment that report is received there will be no hesitancy in dealing at once with the application of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission.


Mr. EULER:: Between which parties of engineers does the difference of opinion exist?


Charles A. Stewart: It is with respect to whether there should be one development on the international reach or two.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but between which two parties of engineers?


Charles A. Stewart: Between the engineers of the federal government and those of the Hydro-Electric Commission. Not being an expert I do not wish to place myself on record on the subject, but I honestly think that to make two developments will be the proper course to pursue. However, the engineers to whom this task has been entrusted will bring in a report and that will decide the matter. Personally I am rather in favour of the smaller development at the start which would meet the necessities of the case at once.


William Findlay Maclean: Will there be a joint report from the two commissions, or will each commission make its own report?


Charles A. Stewart: It will be a joint report for both governments. When I was in Washington recently Mr. Jadwin, who heads the American engineering body, assured me that the report would not be later than at least the middle of June


Mr. BRISTOL:: Are these engineers investigating the further effect of the building of a canal, or are they just going into the power question?	.


Charles A. Stewart: No, they
will deal with navigation and power.


Edmund James Bristol: The whole question?


Charles A. Stewart: The whole question on that reach, and I hope their report will definitely settle this question The moment that report has been received this government will be prepared to take action. My hon. friends will understand, of course, that this development is on the international reach. It has been pointed out that the state of New York is exceedingly anxious for power development. That is true.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Has the government also appointed an inner committee of engineers to scrutinize this report when it comes in?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. There are engineers or technical men on that committee representative of four or five departments of the government. The report will simply be scrutinized by that body and that will not involve any delay. The important thing to my mind as a layman is to settle once and for all a definite policy, agreed to by both governments, for the development of this reach. Then we go on without let or hindrance. If that can be accomplished by June or the first of July I think every hon. member will agree that any delay that has occurred has been useful. With all due respect to what my hon. friend (Mr. Church) has said, the question at issue has nev r been definitely settled. The hope is entertained that the report of the engineers now engaged on the work will settle the issue, and from that point on progress will not be retarded.
I want to make it very clear that this government are just as anxious as the government of Ontario, or any individual, that there should be no unreasonable delay. We are anxious that when the work is undertaken all features of the whole, programme shall dovetail into each other, and that no mistakes shall be made by the starting of works which, while they may not be detrimental, will interfere with the scheme in its entirety.


William Findlay Maclean: What recourse would the government have if the report of the joint board should be against both countries?


Charles A. Stewart: I hardly
follow my hon. friend's question


William Findlay Maclean: The joint board could make a report that would hold up the whole development of that portion of the St. Lawrence.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton) [DOT] One should not be drawn into strong language with respect to matters of this kind, but Canada has certain rights and will not fail to exercise them. I cannot conceive that the board would bring in a report of that kind. After all, with the information now before both countries it is largely to my mind a question whether there should be two developments or one.


William Findlay Maclean: And neither objects to the other's development.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no.

Power Shortage in Ontario


Edmund James Bristol: Is this report going to
cover the canalization of the whole of the St. Lawrence or merely this particular portion?


Charles A. Stewart: I think it
will apply to all, but I am not sure. I should not like to speak with authority without having the order in council before me, but I think I am safe in saying yes.


Edmund James Bristol: This is very interesting
when one sees what is going on in the United States. There is, for example, the idea of a canal through the state of New York. Would that canal, like the Chicago drainage canal, take our water from the Great Lakes?


Charles A. Stewart: They have
taken the water so far apparently without let or hindrance, but perhaps there would be some difficulty about taking more. That of course is a matter quite apart from what the committee are doing. They are working on the St. Lawrence having in mind what is necessary to make the river navigable to a depth of 25 or 30 feet, what canals there should be, where they should be constructed, what power development can be secured on both sides of the boundary, and the best method by which to proceed. That is what the report will contain. I wish again to emphasize the fact that we are in entire agreement with the Ontario government. There is no dispute about their ownership of the power or the land to the international boundary. If they want to develop there would be no holdup, so far 'as the federal government is concerned. I should like to see the hydro development on the Ottawa river; it seems to me there is a great opportunity for such development there. However, they have set their hearts on the development of the St. Lawrence, and it is the business of this government to do everything they can to facilitate that development.


Mr. ROGERS:: This does not apply to the Georgian bay?


Charles A. Stewart: No; and I confess frankly I have very little knowledge of the Georgian bay.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is almost impossible to understand the position or attitude of the government in regard to this matter. For some years there has been an International Joint Commission; but at this time I think their opinion of the situation is almost entirely ignored, because the government has now appointed representatives on a second commission which consists
[Mr. C. A. Stewart.)
of officers from the United States service and prominent engineers in the Dominion of Canada. The course of this government has been somewhat different from that of the United States, in that the United States appointed their permanent engineers, who would be close to the government, to give an opinion on the subject. Our government appointed three permanent-engineers, whose reputation I do not think anyone in this House will dispute; but my understanding of the situation is that they have also appointed 'an inner body of engineers who will advise them. Why these permanent officials should not have been made part of the commission from the beginning I cannot understand; we would then have had one report upon which the government could act.


Charles A. Stewart: May I make an explanation? The advisory board to which the hon. member refers, consisting purely of technical officers, legal and otherwise, in the department, was created to make a study of the whole matter and to advise as to what questions should be submitted for the consideration of the joint engineering board, that is all. They do not in any sense interfere with the work of the board; they were appointed rather to make sure that a thorough investigation of the matter should be made.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister has
not denied that this same body will review the report when it comes back, and no doubt advise as to what they would do. In other words, if the government had deliberately attempted to tie up the question for eternity and complicate it so that no action could be taken, I do not think they could have done it more effectively. Their course has been one of inactivity all through the whole water question. There is nothing more important in connection with this whole scheme than the Chicago steal, yet the minister informed this House that he did not know of a commission or body meeting in Detroit, because he said they were composed of representatives of certain large interests concerned in this matter. Well, if the interests of shipping are not the interests of the government, what interests have the government in the country's affairs? Now, representatives of that body went to Washington. The minister knew nothing about it and has not been in touch with them in any way in regard to it. We already had a commission which could have dealt with it but the government have tied to that commission two additional bodies, one of them to

Power Shortage in Ontario
advise the other what questions should be submitted, or whether or not this matter would be of interest to them.
To come back to the question before the House, there is no necessity for discussion as to the subject of the resolution. The resolution says:
That this House will support the government in taking such immediate action as herein proposed without further delays in accordance with the application of the Ontario government, and Hydro -Electric Power Commission of Ontario file in 1923, 1924 and 1925 with the government of Canada.
So far as eastern Ontario is concerned, we will be in a worse position if a report is presented stating that canalization of the St. Lawrence is necessary. My hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) injected this phase of the subject into the debate, apparently unaware of the fact that if the power development on the St. Lawrence should have to depend on the canalization of the St. Lawrence, then no part of Ontario "would have any power development for another thirty or thirty-five years.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope I did not get into the same quagmire as my hon. friend. I wish it distinctly understood that such a proposition is not in the mind of this government. After the report is made Ontario can go ahead and develop the power.
Mr. ROS6 (Kingston) :	If canalization is
what they suggest, the result will be that the power development will not proceed; they will go ahead with the canalization and it will be thirty-five years before the development of hydro-electric power will be available in the St. Lawrence. The province of Ontario make a simple request to this government; and I contend that the plain question should have been put first: would the building of a dam at Morrisburg or the Long Sault interfere with navigation? That could have been answered long ago, and Ontario would have known whether she would be in a position to proceed with the building of the dam, or whether she must simply lie back and wait for canalization of the St. Lawrence. There is no dispute in regard to the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: Where does my hon. friend get that idea? It is an entirely new one to me, I have never heard it put forward in my life, and I have made a fairly close study of what has happened. I would be interested to know why there is any necessity for waiting for the development of the canal.


Arthur Edward Ross: I made the supposition, if the report is in favour of canalization.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is just supposing?


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: All right.
Mr. ROSI3 (Kingston):	What I am contending is that the question Ontario put to this government should have been dealt with separately, in the light of the necessity and urgency of the matter which was before the people of Ontario. The province made a proposal that if the development of power were left to the Hydro-Electric the federal government would not be charged one cent; the province would proceed to pay the whole cost. The development of power cannot wait upon the canalization of the St. Lawrence if it means further long delay.
I am going to propose to the government that they should take some action in this matter. The development of power on the St. Lawrence is a Canadian project. If Quebec obtains the right to develop power at once, I think this government
5 p.m. should become the mediator and step in and say that Ontario should be considered a favoured customer in respect of the development in Quebec. That would solve the immediate difficulty of the situation. Someone must take that step, and I think that this government should.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
follow my hon. friend. Does he mean, if the development further down the river were undertaken first?


Arthur Edward Ross: It is being undertaken now. Development is going on at the present time.


Charles A. Stewart: At Cedar
Rapids?


Arthur Edward Ross: At Cedar Rapids
and elsewhere. If the province of Ontario is blocked on the lower St. Lawrence the government of the Dominion should, in my opinion, act as mediator between Ontario and Quebec, and declare that Ontario should at least get the benefit due to a favoured customer of the other province. Let me say why that should be done. Every bit of development in eastern Ontario, every increase in population, every additional industrial activity in that section of the province is so much grist to the mill of Montreal. Probably more business goes to Montreal from eastern Ontario than to Toronto, and it is in Montreal's interests to see that eastern
Power Shortage in Ontario

Ontario is fully developed. In proportion to such development will Montreal be advantaged. I would urge this consideration upon the government.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think my hon. friend need labour the question at all. This government is perfectly willing to issue the necessary permit for the construction of works for the development of Ontario hydro, the moment the report comes in. And this development, be it remembered, is on the Ontario reach.


Arthur Edward Ross: Suppose the report provides that only canalization shall be proceeded with.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will consult the instructions issued to the board of engineers he will see that such an eventuality could not occur. All that is required is to provide for the location, and the power is developed at once.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is something that will receive a good deal of consideration. I am afraid that there will be considerable delay before eastern Ontario gets what it needs, and needs at once. I am therefore suggesting to the government that it take some action by way of mediation in this matter, in the event of an undue delay taking place in the development of power. I am trying to point out that it is in the interests of Montreal to see that this development is made.


Charles A. Stewart: There did
not seem to be any dispute about the necessity of a dam at the head of lake Ontario or in that vicinity. I think that our Canadian engineers are all agreed on that point. My hon. friend need not worry about delays because of the canalization of the river holding up Ontario's development.


Arthur Edward Ross: Had the minister
been associated with this activity as long as I have been, and had he had the same experience as I have had of delays and attempts to defeat the ends of the province of Ontario in this matter, he would agree that there was reason to suspect and to doubt the ability of the government to secure some results. I do not altogether blame the government, but perhaps I might point out briefly just what has been done since 1912. The Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario has seen several of its propositions blocked and defeated by interests of one kind or another. They first entertained the idea of developing on the United States border at Waddington, N.Y., and purchasing power there, 
That was blocked and defeated. They then proposed the Morrisburg development, and that ia being blocked by the present government through the duplication of commissions. It is a wonder, therefore, that eastern Ontario is somewhat sceptical of the intention of this government to afford the people there some relief, when they consider the inactivity that has characterized the government in connection with the Chicago steal, which is destroying all our harbours and which will necessitate far greater work than hon. gentlemen opposite have ever anticipated. The minister is evidently optimistic this afternoon, but I confess that I do not share his optimism. However, I am placing before him an alternative in the event of the proposed development being delayed, and that is that, taking the interests of Montreal into account, this government should step in and see that Ontario is given the treatment that should be accorded a favoured customer of Quebec in the matter of hydro power.


William Daum Euler: What does the hon. member mean by a "favoured" customer? Does he refer to priority in the obtaining of power, or to the question of price?


Arthur Edward Ross: What I mean is
that the province should be put in a better position than the United States.


William Daum Euler: I
am not prepared to say Ivery much on this question, but any member who comes from Ontario, and especially from the western part of the province, is naturally very much interested in the development of electrical power, chiefly for the reason, I should say, that it has been made a very great success under public ownership in western Ontario. Speaking for my own constituency, I think [DOT]that I may claim for some of the men who have lived in the town of Kitchener, or Berlin as it was at the time, if not an equal prominence with Sir Adam Beck in the development of power in the province, at any rate credit for being the originators, in that town, of the scheme of developing power at Niagara. The enterprise has proved such a great success in western Ontario that we would view with alarm any likelihood of the same privilege of developing power not being extended to the people of eastern Ontario. A shortage of electrical power does exist in the province, and I think the government should do everything possible to hasten the development of such additional power as is needed in Ontario For my part I can see no very great reason for finding fault with the suggestion that we

Power Shortage in Ontario
should wait until the report is submitted, which the minister has promised by June. If that report is well thought out, perhaps, a short delay will have been justified.
I may refer to what has been said by the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross). If that report recommends something by reason of which the development of electrical power will be further held up, in consequence of the development of a larger scheme of waterways, then I think the government would be doing wrong to allow anything of that nature to stand in the way. I am not yet convinced that the waterway's scheme can be made a success, and I would not want to add my endorsation to any such large undertaking for the development of an ocean waterway to the head of the lakes by way of the St. Lawrence river. I say this for several reasons.
I am a layman and necessarily do not understand much about the engineering difficulties of such a scheme; besides, I am somewhat alarmed at the very high estimates which have been made of the cost. I should like the government to consider making speed in the development of hydro-electric power entirely apart from the waterways proposition, and my purpose in rising this afternoon was to give expression to that view. I hope the minister is right. Certainly I have no doubt that he is sincere in saying that when the report is submitted in June there will be no further delay in the granting of a permit for the development of power at Morrisburg.


Edmund James Bristol: We are all, I am sure, very much
pleased with the position taken by the minister (Mr. Stewart) to-day, that as soon as the report is brought down action will be taken by this government and that this matter will be placed in the hands of the Hydro-Electric Commission and of the government of Ontario. That is a statement of great importance to that province. I am sorry the minister is not able to report as to what has taken place with reference to Niagara falls. I have on the order paper a motion which I have refrained from introducing, believing that some action would have been taken in this direction by the government of the United States and the government of Great Britain, acting on behalf of Canada. I had hoped that something would be done, before the discussion of this motion, in relation to preserving the scenic beauty of Niagara falls along with the use of power there. I have reasons to doubt whether the development at Niagara falls has been the success we had all hoped for so far as Canada and the state of New York are
concerned. This is one matter in which this' country and New York state are equally interested. It is a most important question and one that calls for an early settlement. I understand that engineering reports already submitted show that within a period of three years some 3,000,000 horse-power could be produced for distribution between that state and the province of Ontario. Just what is going to happen in that regard I understand is not to be discussed at the moment, but no doubt it will be later on. Certainly I think it is a matter in which the government, and I am sure the minister, feel we should take every possible protective measure, because When all is said and done 3,000,000 horsepower, representing 35,000,000 tons of coal a year, is something that both the state of New York and the province of Ontario ought to have. The people ought to have it, for it means so much in cheapening the cost of living and of industry and of those things which make the worldl more comfortable and pleasant to live in. It is a matter of vital public importance.
As to the canalization of the St. Lawrence,
I again call the attention of the minister to the fact-which always bites me-as to what our friends at Chicago are doing to us now they admit that at all events they have reduced the level of the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence river at least six inches. If you figure the millions of dollars that you have to spend to deepen the St. Lawrence from Kingston downwards that extra six inches, you will realize the enormous cost and the great injury they are continuing to do to that great scheme, which seems very popular in twenty-one of the states and very unpopular with those states in the south that want to take our Great Lakes water down the Mississippi river. The problem is one to which the government must give very serious consideration. The future prospects of Canada and our relations with the United States are very much at stake at the present time with respect to the Great Lakes and the waters thereof and to What is going on in the United States with the idea apparently that they will run a canal system through the state of New York if we do not agree to a canal system down the St. LawrenCe river. Their attitude is not of that friendly character which we as Canadians would like to see, because we have lived side by side with our neighbours as good friends for the past hundred years, and we want to continue to do so. I do hope that no complications will arise because of the peculiar desire of the Chicago element to take something that does not belong to them, and
Power Shortage in Ontario

the desire that has arisen in the southern states to divert the Great Lakes water to deepen a canal system by way of the Mississippi river in effect taking away from this country and the northwestern states something which belongs to us. I am sure that as far as this party is concerned, although I am not its leader, we are all anxious to help the minister in the work he has to do, which is of such vital importance to this country at the present time.


The DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Before the
debate is closed I would remind the House that the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) has the right to reply.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I do not
want to say very much on this subject, except to comment on the investigating character of this government. I think they are the prize investigators of all time. They have been investigating this St. Lawrence project ever since getting into office, and they are investigating it still. A board of engineers has had the matter in hand, and has had so many other boards advising it that I have never yet heard the minister or any other member of the government able to give a clear account of what is being done.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think my right hon. friend should make that statement. They are not advising the engineering board. I do not think by any process of reasoning he could construe it that way.
.Mr. MEIGHEN: There are at least four or five boards, and the relationship between them nobody can define. Who they are advising, whether each other or somebody else,
I have never yet heard any minister define.


Charles A. Stewart: May I be permitted to tell my right hon. friend in a concrete way all that board is doing about which complaint is being made?


Arthur Meighen: Which board?


Charles A. Stewart: The technical board.


Arthur Meighen: There are far more than one.


Charles A. Stewart: No, not
that I am aware of.


Arthur Meighen: Oh yes.


Charles A. Stewart: That board was appointed simply to go into the matter from the legal and every other standpoint 
and advise the government what questions should be submitted for consideration. Surely my right hon. friend will not complain about
that.


Arthur Meighen: When were the questions submitted?


Charles A. Stewart: They made a study of the matter before the notes passed between this government and the United States government as to the character of the investigation to be made. That was submitted to the joint engineering board. Beyond that the board has not functioned recently.


Arthur Meighen: That board may have
ceased to function, but I will guarantee that if the minister looks into it he will find there are other boards connected with different departments, all having to do in some indescribable way with this question.


Charles A. Stewart: Only in so far as they are officers of that particular department. Take Mr. Johnston of the Dominion Water Power branch; he is a member of that board.


Arthur Meighen: Which board?


Charles A. Stewart: Of the committee at least, not the board. Mr. Biggar is another member.


Arthur Meighen: Of the technical board?


Charles A. Stewart: No, of the committee that went into the matter of what questions should be submitted for consideration.


Arthur Meighen: The minister says "is a member of the committee." Surely the committee is not now existing.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
think they are functioning.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think so. The tense is wrong. That is only one; if the minister makes inquiries he will find there are committees connected with other departments that have to do with this yet, and they will all have to come together before there will be any end to it.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my
right hon. friend tell me who they are?


Arthur Meighen: If he looks at Hansard of last June he will find some of them attempted to be described by the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Graham. The minister now says there will be a report from this engineering board in June, and after that the government will not delay. Will he permit

Power Shortage in Ontario
me now to make a statement of what I think will happen? There may be a report from the committee in June, but there will be no government policy announced. Either there will be delay in filing the report or there will be more consideration necessary, but we will not get any government policy on this question this session.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say
for the information of my right hon. friend that he may be correct,-


Arthur Meighen: I think so.


Charles A. Stewart: -but I think the greatest incentive will come this year from the fact that both the government of the United States and the government of Canada have a very serious problem before them with respect to the lowering of the levels of the Great Lakes, and that more than any other matter will make it very urgent that this report be filed and dealt with.
Mr. MEIGHiEN:	Yes, I am aware of
that. I certainly see its importance and how it must be taken into account before the government comes to a decision on this matter. But what I should like to call attention to is this. The House was going to be asked to pass out of this debate in a peaceful dream, believing that in only a few short weeks we would know the solution of the question and the government would have a pblicy to submit to parliament. It will not have any declaration to make this session, and I question very much if it will have next session. I venture to say when a debate on this question comes on next session, if this government is in office, it will partake very much of the same character as the debate this afternoon; we will be told about this committee and' that committee, about the bearing of this quest;on and that, and about everything except the policy of the government. It is sometimes hazardous to prophesy in this House, but if there is one sure foundation you can get-


Charles A. Stewart: My right hon. friend seems to ibe very critical. The HydroElectric Power Commission filed their plans in 1923 with this government. This resolution says so.
Mr. ME'IGHEN:	Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: In 1924
steps were taken with the United States government to see if we could not get this matter settled. The board of engineers tras been working on it for twelve months.


Mr. MET CHEN:: The Hydro filed their
application in 1923, and steps were taken to appoint a new board in 1924. My first comment is:	Why the year's delay to commence
when before this government came into office the International Joint Commission had this question before it and had instructions to utilize its engineers to make a report to the government as to the character of the St. Lawrence canalization and water-power development. The subject has undoubtedly been in review for years, and the government have shifted the responsibility. Years after the International Joint Commission had this as part of their responsibility this new board was created, and to this new board all these attachments were made. So the matter has been carried successfully up to now. I simply rose to say that the same character of success will attend the whole subject while this government is in office, that being the success of drift and indecision. There will not be any announcement of policy this session, and if by means of opiates and the like the government is in office next session, we will not then have any announcement of policy on this subject.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is speaking for himself; the government have made their announcement.


Mr. GEARY:: Would the minister be good enough to tell me when he expects the report of the Dominion advisory committee? He has said that in June we will have the report of the board of engineers, but how about the Dominion advisory committee? They also have to take up this question.


Charles A. Stewart: The Dominion advisory .committee has not taken this question up in the way my hon. friend says.


George Reginald Geary: The former Minister of
Railways on June 24 of last year, is reported at page 4822 of Hansard1 as having said:
To consider generally whether or noit the project would, if completed, be beneficial to Canada, the government has appointed a national advisory committee for the Dominion-
What has happened to that committee? Apparently its work was to be superimposed upon the work of the board of engineers.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
quite correct. This committee was undoubtedly of very great value in suggesting what the full nature of the investigation should be, having in mind exactly what took place before vhe International Joint Commission, and the investigation there carried on.
Power Shortage in Ontario

I repeat that it was only for the purpose of settling definitely, once and for all, with the government of the United States, what steps should be taken for 'this development on both sides of the river, and what should be the final plan. My hon. friend knows, of course, that there were some differences of opinion even 'between our own engineers, with respect to this matter.


George Reginald Geary: Then will the minister tell me what the former minister meant, in speaking of this national advisory committee, when he said:
Our national advisory committee has had two meetings. Its chief work ,to date has been the consideration and approval of the terms of reference submitted to the joint engineering board. This committee will also study the recommendations and suggestions of the interdepartmental committee, and wihen itiheir work is completed I believe (they will .present a report to the government that will be of very material assistance-
I am asking the minister, what about that report? That committee, as I understand it, is charged with this function as well as that of considering the report of the board of engineers Whether the recommend?! ?ns of the board of engineers will commend themselves to the people of Canada is also a question left to this national advisory committee. Therefore I suggest to the minister that its functions are superimposed upon those of the engineering board. If so, can the minister hope on the completion of the report of the board of engineers to give this House any information at all, until his national advisory committee has considered that report? Further, when will that be?


Charles A. Stewart: Even if the national advisory committee does report it will only be in the nature of departmental advice, which is being given every day. Surely my hon. friend would not expect me to take the responsibility, without consulting officers of my department, of making a statement in parliament about any matter, and particularly a technical matter. I would of course have to have first the advice of those very officers. I do not think any minister would be warranted in proceeding without such advice. I cannot conceive how any body of men could interfere with the report of the joint board of engineers, which is representative of both governments, selected and deputed to prepare a finding of an engineering character purely technical in every respect. I for one do not see any difficulties in the way of dealing immediately with the report of the joint board of engineers.


George Reginald Geary: If the minister will forgive me, do I understand that he would find it impossible to make any pronouncement as to the date upon which he might expect the report of the national advisory committee?


Charles A. Stewart: I would not say that, because the membership of the national advisory committee is composed of technical officers of the department. They are all here in Ottawa.


George Reginald Geary: That is not the committee at all.
Mr. ROSS f Kingston): If that is the function of these officials, why name them as a committee? If that is their ordinary work, and the minister has to consult his advisers in the department, why name them as a committee and put on Hansard such a statement as I referred to this afternoon?
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton)They were named as a committee, as I have repeatedly stated to the House, for the purpose of assisting as officers of the various departments. The Department of Public Works is interested in this project; the Department of Railways and Canals is interested in it, and the Water Powers branch is interested in it. They all have their separate interests and all have been represented simply to bring these officers together for the purposes of consultation.
Mr. GEARY' But that committee is already provided for; that is an interdepartmental committee; that is a committee which, according to the former Minister of Railways, has done splendid work "quietly and silently". I am not concerned so much about its functions, but the minister has not yet told me when he expects the report of the national advisory committee. That is all I want.


Charles A. Stewart: I expect this report when the report of the engineering board is received.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then I would like to jask the minister again if there has njc^S been one commission or committee more than, was needed?


Charles A. Stewart: Not that I am aware of.


Arthur Edward Ross: The procedure is so intricate that no one can understand it.


Thomas Langton Church: I understand the minister has no objection to this resolution being adopted to-day. The reply of the minister has been substantially the same as that made

Customs Administration
by his predecessor in this House on June 24 last, but no matter how many replies we have that will not build the Morrisburg dam. The government of the United States, as I see it, have nothing to do with this question; we are not abstracting water from the river to injure navigation. As a province we have the right to use the surplus waters of that stream for the development of water power, and I do urge that the government issue this permit to the province of Ontario. The minister has said that this report will be received next June, but as I understand it that is the report on the St. Lawrence waterway. The International Joint Commission in 1921 made a report on the St. Lawrence problem, both from the engineering and commercial standpoints, and that report advised that a further report be made on the engineering features of the project. But that has nothing to do with this question, and I would be very much surprised if the report which we are to expect next summer will touch this phase of the question at all. This matter has been a political football for the last ten or twelve years. Is this report to be brought this year and then another report and still another?
I hope the government during the next few months will bestir themselves and see if something cannot be done towards going ahead with this project.	.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is asking that his motion pass in its entirety, but as it stands the wording would make it impossible for the government to accept it, because it would be a clear commitment, without the consent of the United States government, both to the Niagara and the St. Lawrence projects. We are negotiating in connection with both these matters. If my hon. friend will amend his motion reasonably-


William Findlay Maclean: What would the minister suggest?


Charles A. Stewart: It is difficult to amend this resolution as it stands, but if my hon. friend will amend it so that-


Thomas Langton Church: I think the government
should either favour the resolution or vote it down.


Charles A. Stewart: The government is not opposing the resolution nor the spirit of it, but my hon. friends will see how impossible it is for the government to accept a resolution that calls at once for the issuance of a permit to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission to develop power at Morrisburg when we are under obligation to await the
report of the board of engineers and are in negotiation with the United States government on this very matter. Moreover, if he will look at the second clause of the resolution referring to development at Niagara he will see that exactly the same difficulty is encountered.


William Daum Euler: Might I suggest that perhaps the hon. member would consent to amend his resolution by leaving out the word " forthwith " in the third line? The principle would be affirmed.


Thomas Langton Church: I agree to having the resolution amended by leaving out the word "forthwith."


Mr. FLEMMING:: I would suggest that it be amended by leaving out the word " forthwith " and substituting therefor the words " at the earliest possible date."


Charles A. Stewart: That is
agreeable.
Motion as amended agreed to.


INDUSTRIAL COMPETITION
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. ROSS (Kingston):
That in the opinion of this House our industries here have to have safeguarding with respect to competition from other parts of the world, competition from the country to the south, competition from conditions as they are in Europe.
Arthur Edward Ross: I am prepared to
go on, but not at a quarter to six on an important resolution.
Motion stands.


CUSTOMS ADMINISTRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the motions of Mr. Stevens, Nos 23, 24 and 25:
Arthur Meighen: II do not know any reason why these should not carry.


Charles A. Stewart: I have just sent for the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Boivin) jwho asked that they be mover1 for purpose of discussion. I will ask the Houst to wait until he comes in because I know h* wants to deal with some of them. When the, other resolutions are dealt with we might, return to these.
Mr, MEIGHEN:	That is, these three art.
held pending the arrival of the minister.
Motions stand.
On the motions of Mr. Stevens, Nos. 29, 30 and 31:
CJV.R.-Detroit Franchise


Mr. CLARK:: Surely no discussion is possible about number 31. I should think it should be passed as a matter of course.


William Duff: The leader of the opposition asked that the motions of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) stand for the moment.


Arthur Meighen: I meant those that were asked to stand at the request of the Minister of Customs. I am not asking it; it is the Minister of the Interior who. asked it. I assented to it, but number 31 is not in that category.


John Arthur Clark: I will move that.


Charles A. Stewart: I have sent for the minister. I do not know just what is involved in this motion, whether it has anything to do with the investigation or not. If my hon. friend would let it stand until the minister comes in, we shall deal with them all at once.
Motions stand.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- DETROIT FRANCHISE
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, agreements, contracts, letters and all other correspondence between the Honourable Alesander Groesbeck, Governor of Michigan, or any other person or persons, and Sir Henry Thornton and the Canadian National Railways, or any officials thereof, relating to the giving up of valuable charter considerations and rights of way to the state of Michigan by the Canadian National Railways and the Detroit G. H. & M. Railway, a subsidiary-and the agreement to pay $225,000 taxes a year to the state of Michigan. The surrender of valuable franchise owned in perpetuity in the centre of Detroit by the Canadian National and the Detroit & G. R. M. Railway, and also relating to the use of the Brush street (C.N.R.) terminal in Detroit.
He said: This resolution, I might say to the Minister of Railways, was placed under Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers nearly a month ago, and it was transferred without my consent to debatable notices of motion. I appeal to the Minister of Railways. In this case a number of valuable franchises have been given up by the Canadian National Railways, who have closed their shops at Belleville and Stratford and spent I forget how many million dollars to open new shops at Port Huron. What are they doing in the city of Detroit? They are giving away the most important right-of-way the National Railway has on Woodward Ave. Sir Henry Thornton has agreed to this and a contract has been signed, sealed and delivered 
over the head of the party of the first part, the Dominion government. How did the party of the second part, the state of Michigan, act? Governor Groesbeck of the state of Michigan summoned the state legislature at a special session to take up the agreement clause by clause. Is Sir Henry Thornton above this parliament? Has this parliament, no say in these matters in connection with a very im- . portant franchise involving many millions of dollars ol real estate of potential value which has been given up by Sir Henry Thornton over the head of this parliament? I am asking simply for the production of papers. I want the cards to be laid on the table of the House. Let us see the agreement. The state legislature of Michigan took up the agreement clause by clause at a special session. Is there one kind of responsible government in the state of Michigan, and another in the Dominion of Canada? I have no wish to labour the point. I simply ask to see the agreement. Surely there is no objection to this. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) said he had no objection to the resolution; he was quite willing to bring down all the information there was. Let all the cards be laid on the table so that we may see whether there has been a good deal or whether there has been a handout. I am afraid the country has been hoodwinked by the National Railways, and I want to see to what extent that fear is justified. There is no reason why the resolution should not be passed.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is not the slightest objection
to the motion for a return passing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER,:	The House
will revert to motion No. 23, by Mr. Stevens, reading as follows:
For a copy of report of Walter Duncan on the administration of the customs service at the port of Montreal, made during the month of December, 1925, together with a copy of all testimony and documents in evidence received bjy the said Mr. Duncan, also interim report covering eleven definite charges of irregularities including perjury, forgery, theft and other offences committed iby one BisaiMon, and also charges imptticafting other officers of the crown in serious offences, inefficiency and dereliction of duty.
Shall the resolution be adopted?
Hon. G. H. BOIVLN (Minister of Customs and Excise):: When this resolution was submitted to the House on March 15 last I asked that it be transferred from the order

Customs Inquiry
"Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers" to the order 'Notices of Motions,'not because I desired to debate it at any length but because I felt it my duty to explain to the House why, in my humble opinion, this report should not be laid upon the table at the present time. If the motion carries, the government will be requested to lay upon the table a copy of the report made by Inspector Walter Duncan concerning the administration of the customs service at the port of Montreal, during the month of December, 1925, together with evidence and other documents. It is absolutely impossible for the government to comply with that order if it is made, because the government has not in its possession the original report. The original report has already been produced by the Minister of Customs and Excise, to whom it was made, before the committee which is now investigating the administration of the Department of Customs. The report is no longer in the possession of the government. It has already been handed over to a committee of the House. The members of that committee have had access not only to the interim report but to the complete report prepared when the investigation at Montreal was completed. They have also had access to all the evidence taken by Inspector Duncan in the course of his investigation into the affairs of the port of Montreal. The report made to the minister was a confidential report made by one of the employees of the government who was sent to Montreal on a confidential mission to ascertain how the officers of the department were conducting its affairs, and whether or not any of them were guilty of graft, corruption, dishonesty, or irregularity of any kind.
Now, may I explain to the House how the investigation in question was held? Inspector Duncan made an ex parte inquiry. He caused to be brought before him, either at the customs office at Montreal or in a room at the Windsor hotel, not only the officers of the Department of Customs-and I say at once that if any of those officers were proved dishonest I do not want to shield them-but also several other persons who had had dealings with the departmental officers at the port. All these people, whether they were accused or not came before Inspector Duncan and were examined. They were examined without being represented by counsel, they were not allowed to offer any defence in their own behalf. I respectfully represent to hon. gentlemen that it would be unfair to these persons to have this report tabled with the evidence upon which it was based,
in view of the fact that they had no opportunity of defending themselves or of summoning witnesses in their own behalf.
If these reasons are not sufficient to justify the House in refusing to order the production of a confidential report there is the added reason that this document has already been produced. It has been before a committee of this House for at least six weeks, and every member of that committee has had access to it. I am sure that there are members of the committee now in the House who will bear me out in the statement that there are certain conclusions in that report which have not been taken up by the committee and which the committee has decided not to publish at the present time. By unanimous consent the report was produced and not filed before the committee.
Let me give another reason why a copy of the report should not be tabled. The House has appointed a committee to judge these same customs officers and officials upon the evidence now being adduced before the committee. It was appointed to make a report to this House, to give the House the names of the different officers who were unworthy of retaining their positions, the names of the different officers, who perhaps should be prosecuted for illegalities or irregularities in the performance of their duty. The committee must also establish responsibility, determine to what extent the officers themselves are responsible for these irregularities, and to what extent these irregularities were condoned or approved by the minister and by the higher officers in the department in Ottawa.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the House, are we going to be prejudiced, is the public of *Canada going to be prejudiced by reading and by having produced as official, the conclusions drawn by Inspector Duncan? I have nothing to say against Inspector Duncan. I chose Inspector Duncan to make the investigation because he was highly recommended by the Minister of Finance and because he had the reputation of being an honest and efficient official of the Department of Finance. I was glad to send him to Montreal. He did his duty. In so far as he had time to do it, I think he did it well. Without saying a word against Inspector Duncan, I contend that the House does not desire to be influenced by his personal opinion but would prefer to rely upon the judgment of the committee appointed to investigate these matters, to pass upon them and to make a report. What advantage can there be, except possibly some petty political advantage in making public the contents of this report while the same
Questions

matters are under investigation? If hon. members who take part in this debate when it is resumed, are in a position to explain any advantage to the House in having the report tabled at present, if the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) or any other hon. member can explain how the government can prepare a copy of the report and comply with the order of the House, when the report is not in the possession of the government, I should like them to do so. An order was made by the committee calling upon the^ Minister of Customs to submit the confidential report received from Inspector Duncan to the committee and make it available to the members of the committee. I was glad to comply with that request. I no longer have the report.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, April 8, 1926