1927-03-28

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 237, to incorporate The Red River Driving Club.-Mr. Beaubien.
Bill No. 238, respecting The Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton West).

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure) moved:: That the first report of the joint committee on printing be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing) moved:: That the fourth and fifth reports of the select standing committee on standing orders presented to the House on Thursday, 17th March, and on Friday, 25th March, respectively be concurred in.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Will the chairman kindly
intimate what the reports contain.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: The fourth report recommends that the bills which passed the House last session and did not receive the royal assent 'be passed at this session of parliament. The fifth ; report contains the evidence adduced before the committee, showing that the petition respecting a private bill was forwarded in error to the office of the Secretary of State and did not for that reason reach the House in time to be filed within the period prescribed for the receipt of petitions for private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 239, to amend the Criminal Code.
Hugh Guthrie: Explain please.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: This bill is similar to
one which was adopted by the House last year but did not pass the Senate. The object is to repeal certain sections' of the code which were added in 1919 concerning sedition and seditious libel to re-enact the provisions of the code as they were before those amendments.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CUSTOMS TARIFF-DRAWBACK ON AUTOMOBILES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. H, H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I desire to bring to the attention of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Euler) an announcement which appeared in the Border Cities Star of Friday, March 25, and to ask him one or two questions in regard to it. The article reads:
Work will be started immediately on remodeling the plant of Canadian Products Limited, division of General Motors of Canada Limited, on Walker road, and the huge factories, will be reopened by January 1, 1928, according to a message received from Ottawa this afternoon sent by Edmond G. Odette, M.P., for Essex North.
The reason advanced by officials was that the existing Canadian tariff prevented the operation of the local industry on a profitable basis. Since the first of this year Mr. Odette has been working strenuously in an effort to have the tariff provisions which forced the closing of the Canadian Products factories modified. In his message to The Border Cities Star, the Essex North M.P. announced that he had finally been successful, and that the objectionable customs regulations had been modified.
I would ask the minister if any change has been made either in the tariff or the tariff regulations as stated by the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette); if so, was it done by order in council; and if such order was passed, will he lay it on the table of the House?
Hon.   V@: up to 50 per cent Canadian content; others stated that it ought to be allowed to spread over all the models of a certain make of car; others thought it should be applied on the product of the whole factory. While no order has yet been made, it may be that this will be done to meet the views of those who think they can extend their industry more under a certain interpretation of the act.


Hugh Guthrie: Under a little more protection, it will mean.


Mr. EULER:: I rather think a little less.


Mr. STEVENS:: Will the minister please
do the House the courtesy of making the announcement from his seat when this important change is made in the interpretation of the tariff?


William Daum Euler: It is not an interpretation
of the tariff at all. It is merely a matter of judgment as to whether you shall regard the product of a whole factory as being entitled to the drawback or whether it should be restricted to any particular model of car. That is all. However, if desired, I will make a statement to the House when the matter is finally settled.



CANADIAN MINISTER AT WASHINGTON


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the
Prime Minister I would ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)-he is leading the House-as to whether we may expect by tomorrow a compliance with the order of the House for the letters of credence issued to the Hon. Vincent Massey as envoy plenipotentiary to Washington, the order in council passed by the Canadian government with regard to his appointment, the correspondence with respect to that appointment between the Canadian government and the Imperial government, and any order in council of the Imperial government with respect to this appointment to which the government has access. I should like these papers to be laid on the table of the House prior to the discussion on the Imperial conference report, which I understand is to take place to-morrow.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to conyey the
request of my hon. friend to the Prime Minister, and I have no doubt it will be complied with.



IMMIGRATION PUBLICITY

[Stage Direction]
- CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY LEAFLET
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: Mr. Speaker, seeing the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) is in his seat, I desire to inform him that I hold in my hand a leaflet issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is evidently distributed throughout the British Isles, calling for 14,000 farm labourers for Canada, and guaranteeing them employment. Is the minister aware of this, and are such leaflets distributed as part of the policy of the Immigration department?


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: Mr. Speaker,
apparently the leaflet is issued by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and as the company is guaranteeing employment, I do not see any reason for any explanation on my part. The Canadian Pacific is a responsible corporation. It is bringing out immigrants and promising to furnish them employment or to see that they get employment. I have nothing further to add.


Mr. W. R. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the minister if his department has any regulations compelling steamship companies to bring out experienced farm labourers.


Robert Forke: I do not think there is any regulation to compel them to bring out experienced farm labourers but where they recruit experienced farm labourers and fulfil all the conditions, those immigrants are entitled to reduced fares.



THE CHINESE SITUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the other day when I asked a question with regard to China, it was treated more or less as a joke. Those of us who have relatives and friends in China do not consider the present situation as a joke. I would ask tJhe government whether they will consider urging upon Canadian citizens now resident in China the advisability of withdrawing until after the civil war is over.


Ernest Lapointe: I shall have to ask my hon. friend to allow me to submit his question to the Prime Minister for an answer to-morrow.

Inquiries jor Returns



CANADA GRAIN ACT AMENDMENT-CORRESPONDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) the Minister of Justice will bring to his attention my request that there be laid on the table the correspondence between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Board of Grain Commissioners respecting amendments to the Grain Act. The bill will be before us almost immediately, and there is not sufficient time for me to make this request in a formal motion. I am sure the government will be glad to let us have the correspondence.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, I shall be pleased to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do so.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) to be good enough to expedite a return ordered by this House just a month ago to-day concerning the dismissal of the postmaster from the post office of Pelly, in Yukon Territory. It should not take a clerk more than an hour to get the papers ready.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: The matter has escaped my memory. I will certainly see that the return is brought down.



NOVA SCOTIA POSTMASTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Luneitburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that an order of the House was passed on March 16 last for a return of copies of letters and other documents relating' to the dismissal of three postmasters in Lunenburg county, and to ask when compliance with the order may be expected.


Peter John Veniot: The order relates to more departments than that of the Postmaster General. I will draw the attention of the Civil Service Commission to the matter and have the papers brcmght down.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I would direct the attention of the Postmaster General to
the fact that these three postmasters were not appointed by the Civil Service Commission.


Peter John Veniot: What are their names?


William Gordon Ernst: Brunswick Rhodenizer, of
Upper Branch; James Backman, of Aspotogan; and M. A. Harlow of North Brookfield.



SEIZURE OF STEAMSHIP WESTERN

William Gordon Ernst: I would remind the Minister of Customs that an order passed the House on March 16 for a copy of all letters, telegrams or other correspondence with reference to the seizure of the steamship Western and the disposal of its cargo. When may I expect that order to be complied with?


William Daum Euler: I will make inquiries and have the order complied with as soon as possible.
REVALUATION OF SOLDIER LANDS On the Orders of the Day:


Mr. JOHN MILLAR (Qu'Appelle):: I received this morning a letter from a returned soldier writing on behalf of a number of returned soldiers on the land, anxiously inquiring how soon they will be able to place applications with the Department of Soldiers *Civil Re-establishment for revaluation of lands. They are very anxious to have an opportunity of putting in these applications before they seed their land. I want to ask the government whether it is possible to give any information on this matter at the present moment.


Robert Forke: The bill has not yet passed the
House.



MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chev-rier for the second reading of Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. L. M. AUGER (Prescott):: I feel
rather bashful and nervous, following the ho*, member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) who gave such a wonderful display of eloquence and fluency of language. Although I do not agree with his ideas I think I should congratulate him sincerely upon his vocabulary and the able delivery that marked his speech on Tuesday and Friday evenings. Words upon words came from the lips of the hon. member with such ease as to remind me of a

Georgian Bay Canal Company
gentle rivulet winding through a meadow in a narrow and shallow bed. Or, to change the simile, he clothed his ideas in an exterior of simple dignity so that on the surface they were attractive, but underneath there was no mistaking the fact that he was a true Tory; and although he himself is an able man it must be admitted that he serves a shallow and narrow cause, the cause of Toryism. One not acquainted with Tory inconsistency might well have been surprised the other day to find an hon. gentleman so wroth against insinuations and personalities, but he himself excelled in these. He intimated on rising that his purpose was to refute the insinuations that had characterized the speech of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chev-rier), and one had a right at least to expect that in his own speech he would have refrained from making insinuations. That however was not the case. The first part of his speech conveyed the unwarranted insinuation that the Prime Minister of this country (Mr. Mackenzie King) had engaged himself to renew this charter because of the electoral merits of the promoters. I do not wish to speak for the Prime Minister, but inasmuch as that strange suggestion caused so much hilarity I think it might be well to recall it to the House and ask hon. members to consider it. The hon. member painted his picture in such vivid colours that we visualized the Prime Minister listening to the Squire of Newmarket and then finding it impossible to vote against a renewal of the charter.
Sir, the picture represents a very vivacious image of what might be reality. But it is not reality; it is only fiction invented by the hon. member himself. And in view of his wonderful gift in this direction and the unlimited resources of his imagination, one is reminded of those lines from Gray's Elergy:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.
The rest of his speech was either an insinuation or a fallacious assertion that in voting against the amendment we on this side were playing the game of politics. We are giving 200 miles of lakes and rivers without receiving a dollar in return, spoliating the rights of Ontario and Quebec, and violating the great principle of public ownership. That is what the hon. gentleman says. Let me say that although I am not a lawyer, I shall not be deceived too easily by a member of that profession. In voting against the amendment we are not granting anything; we are not renewing the charter; we are not spoliating provincial rights, and we are not violating the principle of public ownership; we are

simply declaring that in the opinion of the House the bill should go to the committee on railways and canals. As a matter of fact, all we are doing is to refuse to kill the bill at this stage, without that careful consideration which it ought to 'receive from the committee.
In order to make clear what my attitude is on this question, and what I gather to be the attitude of my colleagues, let me assure the House that we stand for no particular group of capitalists; we are not favouring either the Siftons or the Aldreds or the Grausteins. We are not opposed to public ownership in favour of private enterprise; we stand on the side of the government because we want a fair deal given everyone.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Which side is the government on?


Louis Mathias Auger: I repeat, we want everyone
to get a square deal, and with that end in view we think that every project which is suggested for the purpose of contributing to a solution of our national problems should be very carefully considered. And the pro-73sal for the construction of the Georgian bay canal, and the development of power alung that route, is one of very great importance which deserves the close scrutiny of the people's representatives. That is my stand on this question, as I believe it is the stand my colleagues take. We firmly believe that if the bill were sent to the committee it could be better investigated than it can possibly be here. Now, what is the real objection to referring the bill to the committee? Is the bill of no importance? Obviously not, because the very fact that this House has spent so much time discussing it is proof that it concerns a matter of serious moment to the country. What then is the cause of the great opposition which it has encountered? It is this: that another private group is seeking for the rights of the Carillon 'power, and such is the situation that if the amendment is carried that private group will remain sole proprietor of the Carillon site. The House ought to consider this point carefully. The hon. member for West Calgary, the other day, gave the House the impression that if the amendment carried and the bill were rejected, the principle of public ownership would be vindicated. That is not so. Let me quote from the hon. member's speech:
Unless this parliament intervenes, the rights of this canal and power enterprise expire on the first day of May and the rights and privileges of this private power company also expire on the first day of May. What then is the duty of parliament? Far be it from me to

Georgian Bay Canal Company
suggest what that duty should be for others. What is my duty? My duty is, so far as my vote and voice are concerned, to see to it that this parliament gives no new life to an enterprise that we would not in this day create if we were called upon to do so, and that we leave the river Ottawa free, by permitting this charter to lapse and by refusing to renew the license to the private company, reserving the vested rights of the owners of the 250 horsepower development.
This is not correct; there is another lease which was granted in 1913, which does not expire until 1974.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For what
horse-power?


Louis Mathias Auger: For 250 horse-power. But
I would remind the hon. member that the private group owning that lease claim to be in the position of a lessee in possession, and that they have the sole authority to develop power on the Carillon site.


Edward Joseph Garland: Only to the amount called for by their charter; unless they get additional authority they are limited to that.


Louis Mathias Auger: I am ready to be corrected
if I am wrong, but this group claim that they possess the sole authority to develop electrical power in that region, and that no one else can proceed with a development of that kind on a large scale until 1974. Of course the Conservative members have well hidden that aspect of the case; they have not spoken of it, and their position in opposition to the renewal of this charter is well understood by everyone. It is only natural that this should be the case, because they gave to the company the leases which it obtained in the past. It would seem that they are interested in the company, according to the facts by which we may judge. In 1913 they gave this lease to the National Hydro; in 1921, at the time of the election, that lease was renewed with greater powers, and in 1926 it was renewed again.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely my hon. friend
will be fair enough also to say that the lease was granted originally in 1909, and renewed in 1928-24 by the government of which he is a supporter.


Louis Mathias Auger: Because we stand in this case for a loyal and careful investigation of the matter; because we think it our duty to practise the virtue of justice and to safeguard the public interest and the general welfare of this country, the gallant knights backing the opposition to this bill have attacked us in various manners. They have insinuated that we were willing to violate the principle of
public ownership and to despoil well-determined provincial rights; they, have accused us cf playing the game of politics and have depicted the Prime Minister as having made his decision on this bill on the electoral merits of the promoters. But against me personally they have come out with the most insidious attacks. The National Hydro has asked each municipality in my constituency to send in to the government the following resolution:
Moved by . . . , , seconded by ... . that the council of the municipality of. . . . respectfully urges the parliament of Canada not to renew the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, known as Bill No. 78, as in our opinion this bill is not in the interests of the province of Ontario as it is an attempt to deprive the people of this province of their right to the powers to be developed from the waters of the Ottawa river; and further, that this charter has been in existence for thirty-three years, and no actual construction has taken place, and we believe the renewal of this charter would be contrary and prejudicial to the public interest.
But that is not all. The newspapers of my constituency have also attacked' me, with the exception of the Prescott and Russell Advocate of L'Orignal. I quote from the Eastern Ontario Review, published at Van-kleek Hill, the following open letter to myself :
An Open Letter to Mr. L. Auger, M.P.
For Prescott County as to His Position on the Georgian Bay Canal Scheme
Dear Mr. Auger,
Your silence in parliament and moreover your reported disappearance; also the published information of the number of letters you have received from the fair sex all over the country, and the reputed number of marriage offers tendered you, has led us to wonder what you are doing in parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis Mathias Auger: The letter continues:
No doubt you are aware that the county of Prescott has sent you to parliament for the good of the people of this historical county, not to further your own popularity with the fair sex. Just now a matter of vital importance is before the House of Commons, that is, the granting of another charter to the Georgian bay canal. Eight times has this question appeared, and eight times has been talked out. One division has taken place and Mr. Auger did not vote, nor was he paired. Now our youthful and handsome young member knows that if the Georgian bay canal scheme goes through that it sounds the death knell of the Carillon power development situated in the eastern corner of Prescott county and which would necessitate the spending of millions in our midst. What is his position? Does he intend to stand by Carillon or Georgian bay canal? No two ways about it. County of Prescott and its welfare versus the Sifton interests.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Another article of the same nature appeared in t'he same newspaper on Friday of last week. These insinuations are stupid, malicious and clumsy, but one is bound to sympathize with their author for his lack of common sense. One is also amused, because through his human cloak appears the ears and fur of the silly ass; nothing should be said in reply to this except that the man is entirely-and willingly-in error, and that he has a cause to serve which he does not openly avow. The attacks made against myself because I have not been active in working against the Georgian bay canal scheme are most unjust and unwarranted; they are not fair, because we can justify the stand W'e take on the amendment. We must vote against the amendment for several reasons, first that by so voting we do not grant anything, we do not accept the principle of private enterprise nor do we vote against the principle of public ownership. We do not grant a charter; we do not give away 200 miles of waterway; we give nothing to anyone. We simply desire carefully to study this scheme which is of such importance to the people of this country, and I believe that the people of Canada are sufficiently interested to desire that such a study be made. It appears that a vote for the amendment is only a vote in favour of the National Hydro, and not a vote for the principle of public ownership or the protection of provincial rights. I submit, therefore, that we have ample reason to vote against the amendment.
I think the project most important, because if the canal should be built it would mean greater facility of transportation. The fact has been demonstrated that the construction of this canal would mean a saving of time, of distance and of money in the transportation of goods from the west to the east, and from the east to the west. Its construction would result in greater facility of transportation which would help to solve one of our greatest national problems. It would help also to create a Canadian market about which our Conservative friends are continually talking. In my opinion improved transportation facilities would be more effective in building up a Canadian market than any action we could take through the medium of a tariff policy. Improved transportation would also widely advertise this country abroad. It would help to attract immigration which heretofore has been going to the United States. The republic to the south has always attracted foreign immigrants because that country has a reputation for planning and executing great works. Labourers flock there because the}' are reasonably sure of getting employment.

If this canal were constructed it would result-in such publicity for Canada as to accomplish quicker results than could be achieved through the action of immigration agents in London and other cities of the world. The construction of this work would also stimulate industry and commerce. The ordinary mind can scarcely grasp the benefits it would bring about; it would take an imagination like that of the hon. member for West Calgary to visualize them.
In concluding my remarks, let me quote not from a foreign source but from an hon. member sitting on this side of the House:
My hope in sending this matter to the committee, would be that from that committee might come some constructive proposition that would help us to deal properly with a great national problem.
This was the view expressed by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown). Further on in the same speech the hon. gentleman said:
I take the position that we should send this bill to the committee, only in the hope that from the committee will come some suggestion to enable us to settle the question in the interests of the Dominion, whose rights in this great waterway are paramount.
And again:
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that this could be so done as to secure the end that we have in view-that these great natural resources shall be preserved and developed in such a way as to secure the maximum benefit for the great mass of the common people of Canada.
These observations of the hon. member for Lisgar, to my mind, contain an expression of sound Liberalism and true patriotism. I feel that in a country where private enterprise and public ownership have done so much for the public welfare we should not discriminate in favour of one or the other; after all they are only agencies. Whether a service is performed by one or the other of these instruments which the nation in the past has used to such great advantage should not concern us so much as whether the action performed is done properly and to the greatest degree will promote the common good. To private enterprise we owe the discovery, the colonization and the early development of this great Dominion, and to private enterprise we owe most of ihe prosperity that we enjoy. Yes, Sir, private enterprise has done so much for the welfare of Canada and is still operating so beneficially, that we cannot turn our backs upon it. It deserves better treatment than scorn, contempt and ingratitude; and if before the committee, to which I hope this bill will be referred, it is found that the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company can carry out the great project of constructing the canal and developing electrical energy, I cannot see

Georgian Bay Can .1 Company
that I could object to the measure for the reason that what is proposed is not a public enterprise.
Let U3 amend the charter, if necessary, in order to protect the rights of all concerned; but let us not delay or thwart the execution of a plan which means so much for the future of this country. In our vote on this question, let us consider not so much the question of the oharter itself, let us consider not simply the principle of public ownership or the interests of the National Hydro or any other concern, let us not consider even the canal itself, but let us stand for the country that we love and cherish and whose interests we place above all other considerations.
In my opinion the stand we should take, in order to maintain our reputation as serious men, is the stand that was adopted, by the hem. member for Lisgar. If we do that I am satisfied that we shall secure the end we have in view: that our great natural resources shall be preserved and developed in such a way as to secure the maximum of benefit for the great mass of the common people of Canada. Let us look to the committee to whom this project may be entrusted to consider the question in that light, and to make a careful and impartial study of the great problem of national transportation.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka-Ontario):: In rising to continue the debate on this question, which has been discussed until the subject has almost been worn threadbare, let me say that I have no apologies to offer. I consider what is proposed here one of the greatest steals ever attempted in the twentieth century and when I say that I do not forget the things that have been put over the people of this country in the past.
After the very able speeches that have been made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett), and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), it is very hard indeed, as I am sure hon. members generally will agree, to find something new or interesting to say on this subject. Nevertheless, in the few remarks that I shall make I shall endeavour to avoid as far as possible rehashing any of the statements and excuses put forward by previous speakers, except to the extent necessary to preserve the continuity of my argument.
If I had my way I would not only wipe out the charter we are considering but every charter on the Ottawa river, and leave the Ottawa river and the power thereon free as it ought to be to the people of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I approach the consideration of this subject, and the question of the power development that is involved from the standpoint of what will contribute most to the upbuilding of the country. I feel that the development of power is as inevitably connected with the development of our country as in our timber, our minerals, our pulpwood, or any other of our natural resources. I look forward to the time when this Dominion will have a great increase of population, and when the provinces of Ontario and Quebec will be peopled by from ,<velve to fifteen millions of souls. I look forward with much interest to the development of the province from which I come and I wish to preserve to the public, rather than alienate to private interests, not only the water-powers located on this river but those existing on the other streams of Canada.
The charter, the renewal of which we are considering, has been in existence for something over thirty years and those who hold it have failed to live up to its terms. Otherwise that charter would not be before us today for renewal. We have to consider that renewal not only in the light of past events but in the light of to-day, bearing in mind the great increase in the value of electrical energy which has come about within recent years, and the enormous demand for it. I am one of those who believe it is the duty of the government and of parliament to preserve these great heritages of the past and to administer them as a trust for the benefit of the people. To me it seems strange that the government who are in power at the present time, although this bill has been before this House for the twelfth time, have had practically nothing to say on such an important issue.
I want to refer very briefly to the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) who introduced this bill. I have been wondering whether the promoters have been quite frank with parliament in regard to this project or whether their contempt for the intelligence of parliament is so great they thought they could, in the vernacular of the street, "put one over" the members of the House of Commons. This is what the hon. member for Ottawa said, as reported on page 1387 of Hansard:
I come now to the question asked me a moment ago: Is this a canal charter or is its object the development of power? Well, no matter how the question may be argued; no matter what is said, I affirm that under the terms of the charter which the promoters of this bill are endeavouring to have renewed, nothing is contemplated but the construction of the canal.
Was the hon. member for Ottawa frank with this House or was he not? If he was frank

Georgian Bay Canal Company
with this House, was he frank with the company which he is supposed to represent in this House, because looking at the last paragraph of the bill I find that the promoters are asking for a renewal not only of their charter for the construction of a canal, but of the power rights which were slipped into this charter many years after it was originally granted? If they are asking only for the right to construct a canal, why is he asking to have confirmed in the present bill the power rights which were slipped in there in 1912? If they are asking for the power rights, why does he stand before parliament and solemnly declare that all the company wants is the privilege of constructing a canal? Furthermore, in the last clause it is provided that if certain conditions are not fulfilled the canal rights lapse, but there is not a similar provision in regard to the power rights. Therefore I say again to the hon. member for Ottawa that it appears to me that he has not been quite frank either with the House or with the company.
Let us look at his proposition as a canal scheme. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) was good enough to allow me to read the brief which was placed in his hands by the hon. member for Ottawa. In that brief I find that the estimated cost of this canal was $282,000,000. If we take it for granted that money is worth 5 per cent, the interest on that amount would be something over $14,100,000 per annum. Does he think any canal that had to pay yearly such a vast sum as $14,100,000 interest on the investment, could be made to pay as a canal project? I am quite positive there is not in the world a financial firm that would finance this project simply as a canal. What does that mean? It means that if we assume there would be a saving of three cents a bushel on wheat from the west, as is claimed, the freight rate would still be six cents a bushel, and that would involve, in order to pay the interest on the investment, bringing over this canal something like 235.000,000 bushels a year. Was ever a more absurd proposition put before a body of intelligent people? In addition to this we must remember that this canal would have to do business in competition with the other free canals of the Dominion of Canada. Therefore, looked at from a business standpoint, the thing is absurd.
Further, I find from the brief which the hon. member for Bow River kindly placed in my hands, that the company have no intention simply of building a canal system. They grant, as has been granted by everybody, that the navigable waters are under the control of the Dominion, but they make the express

declaration that there are no surplus waters on the Ottawa river and that all those waters will be under their control as they will own the dams, control the sluiceways, and thus control the time and place at which the water is let out. Consequently they will be absolutely in control of the water-powers on the Ottawa river.
That brings us right up against the great proposition of provincial rights which has been fought out in the past in this country. I am surprised, when I look across this chamber, to see a government sitting here, called a Liberal government, when from the beginning of this debate to the present time, not a single member has risen in his place to defend the principle of provincial rights. My mind goes back in history to the days of Sir Oliver Mowat, the Hon. Edward Blake, and the great battles that were fought in those days by the Liberal party for provincial rights in this country. I say to myself: How are the mighty fallen! To-day there is not on the Liberal side a voice that can be raised on behalf of the provincial rights of this country. They sit there wedded to the big interests of Canada, helpless, and they have nothing to say on behalf of that policy which was one of the big factors in creating the great Liberal party of the past.
I would like, for example;, to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) if he remembers the chorus of the Liberal campaign song of some thirty or forty years ago, a song written by the wife of a cabinet minister, the Hon. J. D. Edgar, whose painting we see out in the hall. It went something like this:
The traitor's hand is on thy throat, Ontario, Ontario,
Suppress the traitor with thy vote, Ontario, Ontario.
That was the campaign song of the Liberal party thirty or forty years ago. Where does that party stand to-day? Where are these great upholders of provincial rights in this country? I would like to ask the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) where he stands on this question. Is he standing up for the knight that formerly represented his constituency, or is he standing for the interests of the common people that he and his party love so well to talk about? Might I remind him in passing that the Conservative party of the province of Ontario, provineially speaking, is to-day endeavouring to carry hydroelectric energy to every farm in this country? They have spent millions already. They have built something like 1,800 miles of primary and secondary power lines, to carry that power to the farmers of this country. Is he going

Georgian Bay Canal Company
to stand up for the farmer who will have the power on his farm to grind his corn, to saw his wood, to light his barn, or for the housewife to churn her butter? Or is he going to stand up for the plutocrat and the big interests which are seeking to grab a million or a million and a quarter horse-power on the Ottawa river? When the farmers of this country and all the industrial interests of eastern Ontario needed that power so badly the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission had to go over into the province of Quebec to buy some 266,000 horse-power from the Gatineau in order to supply the wants of eastern Ontario. They have been blocked for years in their efforts to extend the great hydro of western Ontario in the east because of these big interests' that were attempting to control the franchise on the Ottawa. Is he going to pass by the poor farmer and the workingman, and take his seat beside Dives at the rich man's table?
Where is the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) ? He gave us an interesting discourse a while ago. He said: "I do not believe anybody can frame an amendment that will make the bill suitable, but I am willing to pass it on to committee in the hope I suppose that the promoters or somebody behind them may supply the brains to do it." Might I remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that a few months ago Mr. Harry Sifton gave an interview in Toronto. In that interview he told the press that the Liberal party had the halters on nearly all the Progressives of this country. As I look across the House and see Liberals to the front of them, Liberals behind them, Liberals to the left of them and Liberals to the right of them, I wonder if he was not speaking the truth. When I see men like the hon. member for Lisgar get up, because Harry Sifton cracks the whip, as he has done over the present parliament, when I see him using all the force he can to pull a $100,000,000 contract from the people of this country safely within the grasp of the big interests of Canada, I wonder what we are coming to in this country. Where is the great Progressive party that a few years ago shouted to the heavens for the interests of the common people? Have they departed or have they not? Well, we will soon know. When this vote takes place we will know whether Mr. Sifton has the halter upon these people or whether he has not. The people of Canada to-day are looking to this House, and thejr will look at the vote that is to be taken to-night, and to-morrow they will size up the situation and will know whether Mr. Sifton was right or whether he was wrong.
For a moment, let me visualize this graft, if I may. Let me bring before this House and the country the magnitude of it, in order that they may better know what they are voting on to-night. It just so happens, Sir, that I can very easily do this, because in the province of Ontario we have the Hydro Electric Power Commission which has developed electrical energy to the extent of something over 960,000 horse-power, not as great as this development will be, but something in the neighbourhood of three-quarters of it, and when I tell hon. members what that commission has done they will see the possibilities that lie before the people who obtain the franchise or the power rights on the Ottawa river, if they do obtain them. We have in the province of Ontario to-day, 410 municipalities using electrical power that was developed by the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario. There are 402,000 consumers. We have over 5,000 miles of transmission line with a generating ^capacity of 961,000 horse-power, and they have invested $276,000,000 in capital. They would have done more, Sir, had they not been retarded in the eastern end of the province and had not the whole provincial development been held up by such companies as are seeking today to renew this franchise. What has that meant to the people of Ontario? The cost of the power delivered to the doors of the people to-day is less than one-quarter of what it was before the hydroelectric came into existence. Let us visualize that and put it into dollars and cents, and we find that the saving to the people of the province of Ontario in 1925 was something over $36,000,000, comparing hydro with pre-hydro rates. Does that mean anything to the people of this country, or does it not? Does that tell the House and the country the possibilities that lie behind the franchise for the power on the Ottawa river-$36,000,000 saved to the people of Ontario in one year? They pay that much less than they would have had to pay under pre-hydro rates.
Let me give another comparison.' It was stated in this House the other day that the rates under private ownership were lower than the rates under public ownership, as ex-emplied in the Hydro Electric Power Commission. I have in my hand a comparison which deals first with domestic lighting and heating. I will take the cities of Toronto, Hamilton, London and Montreal, three of them under hydro, and one under private ownership, and then I will go to the United States and take Buffalo and Detroit. I find

Georgian Bay Canal Company
that for domestic lighting and cooking for the same quantity in each case, Toronto is paying $45.97, Hamilton and London the same, Montreal $76.87, Buffalo $174.20 and Detroit $124.38. Then for commercial lighting, which is a little bit different, Toronto is paying $357.60, Hamilton $140.48, London $228.50, 'Montreal $1,147.70, Buffalo $811.70 and Detroit $936.17.
I will not bother the House with the figures for power, because it is hardly germane to this matter, but the proportion is pretty much the same, showing that the preservation of this power for the use of the people is one of the great functions of parliament to-day.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I was a little confused at the start about the mystery surrounding this subject. We were told during the course of the debate that behind the bill was a mystery company. Some said it was Sir Clifford Sifton and his confreres, while others declared he had nothing to do with it. I do not know who is behind the bill, and I cannot say that I care. But I go back to some years ago when, I remember, the papers reported a similar mystery that surrounded the government of that day, of which the same man was Minister of the Interior. During the past week I have devoted considerable time to ^reading musty volumes of Hansard containing the debates between 1900 and 1907, and I was startled at the great mystery which surrounded the doings of the government at that time just as we see a similar mystery surrounding the present government. I found, for example, that there was then in existence a mystery company called the North Atlantic Trading Company. It seemed like the world at its creation-it was without form and void. But it had one distinguishing characteristic, an insatiable capacity for swallowing money. It was supposed to have its headquarters at Amsterdam, but no one there knew anything about it, for it apparently was not a corporate entity. With this mystery company the government of the day entered into an agreement under which the company were to get five dollars, or one pound sterling, for every man, woman and child that it brought into Canada. AVhere the immigrants came from did not matter; with the exception of the citizens of a few countries, everyone was welcome. And it did not matter whether they stayed here or not, once they were brought to this country the company was entitled to payment. Then I consulted the reports of the Auditor General and I found that the

following amounts had been paid out to the
company:
Auditor General's Report: Period	Amount	Date	Page1899- 1900	$ 5,353 33	1900	L181900-	1901	
23,817	60	1901	L181901-	1902	
35,916	00	1902	L191902-	1903	
34,553	33	1903	L23*1903-1904	
38,966	66	1904	L26*1903-1904	
111.330	99	1905	L261904-	1905	
55.396	25	1906	L251905-	1906	
24,333	33	1907	L251906- 1907	
36,901 50	1908	K33

*Total for 1903-04: $150,297.65.
It will be observed that a total of $366,000 odd was paid to that mystery company which though apparently without any corporate existence w<as very skilful in drawing money from the Canadian treasury.
I continued my research and I found that something mysterious happened in connection with half-breed scrip. An order in council was passed making it lawful to purchase this scrip from holders outside the Dominion, and in some mysterious way that order in council was suppressed for three months. During that period agents from Winnipeg used their time to good purpose and bought up some 30,000 to 35,000 acres of land covered by this scrip, for which they paid at the rate of from one to two hundred dollars for 240 acres of land. A mystery? Do hon. members see any similarity between the present mystery and the mysteries of those days?
I pursued my investigations a little further and found a mystery connected with Saskatchewan, called the Saskatchewan Land Company, to which 250,000 acres of land in that province, supposed to be desert, was sold for a dollar an acre. But strange to say, within two years afterwards it proved to be a very fertile rose garden. Another mystery? Why, of course, whoever heard of cold-blooded business men buying up 250,000 acres of desert land? I found also another company, this time in the Peace river territory, called the Peace River Colonization Company, to which was transferred 336,000 acres of land for a dollar an acre-twenty-five cents down, twenty-five cents in five years, and the balance in ten. I found further that extensive lands had been leased out there, and that nine of the leases were so drawn that they could not be revoked I have the names and the figures here, but I will not weary the House with them. Suffice to say that the leases covered 41,000, 60,000, 30,000, 47,000, 55,000, 48,000, 60,000 acres odd, and so on. Then something mysterious happened. People were allowed to buy ten per cent of this grazing land at a dollar an acre. Pursuing my investigation still further, I

Georgian Bay Canal Company
found another mystery. While the law permitted a man to buy only 320 acres of coal lands I found there had been alienated as much as 2,000, 4,000, 6,000, 8,000 and 10,000 acres to individuals and that in this way something over 72,000' acres of coal lands were sold at from seven dollars to ten dollars an acre that afterwards were resold at fifty dollars an acre. I will not weary the House with a recital of the other mysteries that I unearthed, such as the timber limits, Yukon liquor permits, et cetera. My only reason for bringing these mysteries of the past to the attention of hon. members is that we have to-day a mystery company behind which are certain mysterious individuals whom nobody seems to know. And those individuals have added to the mystery by telling us that they are prepared to build canals for the use of this country for nothing. I ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) if he is credulous enough to believe that-


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: What is the question?


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is so credulous as to believe that this company, as they boast in their brief, would give Canada a canal system from Georgian bay down to the Ottawa river free of cost.


William Richard Motherwell: If we can get a
canal for nothing, why shouldn't we take it? We don't often get an opportunity of that kind.


Peter McGibbon: The minister, with his usual shrewdness, has answered a question that I did not ask him. I asked if he thought this company would be as good as their word and build us a canal for nothing. Does anybody believe it? And when I observe that apparently the same people are behind this company as were administering the natural resources of Canada in the past in the manner that my researches have indicated, I ask this House, I ask the country: Do you think we can be beguiled into betraying the people of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec in taking from them a potential development of a million or a million and a quarter electric energy, and hand it over to a company simply because its promoters tell us that they are wiling to build the canal for nothing?
Now, Mr. Speaker, my stand on this question is very simple. As I said before, if I could I would wipe every power company off the Ottawa river. I condemn every government that has renewed the franchise of this company since the value of these water-powers was known. I say to the House and to the country that it is the duty of the
Conservative party, if no other party will do so, to stay here and fight this question from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month, if necessary, until this franchise expires, if the House does not vote it down.


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weybum):: I have
listened these many weeks with more or less patience, or impatience, to the arguments advanced on both sides of this controversy and I have tried to separate the wheat from the chaff, the relevant from the irrelevant, to discover what the real issue is. What is the question that is before the House to-day? What is the question we shall decide by our votes if we vote to-day? The question is not, shall we or shall we not have the Georgian bay canal? It is not, shall we or shall we not develop water-powers on the Ottawa river? It is not, shall we or shall we not have public ownership in this country? The immediate question which we shall decide by our votes is, shall we or shall we not send this bill to the committee to be investigated? That is the issue in the impending vote.
Much has been said during this debate about the principle involved. I ask, what is the principle involved? It is not the great principle of public ownership, neither is it the wicked principle of private enterprise. Ii is not the great principle of provincial rights, neither is it the principle of federal jurisdiction; for the question is, shall we refer this bill to the committee? Shall we investigate it and see what is in it? It is not even a question of the high and lofty principles of Sir Herbert Holt as opposed to the wicked principles of Sir Clifford Sifton; the question is, shall we investigate this bill and see what it proposes? The real principle which is at stake is this: shall this parliament maintain its ancient right to investigate, before its own committees, questions of great public importance? That is the issue in a nutshell. That is what we shall decide by our vote on this amendment.
Let me review for a moment the history of this project. The charter was issued for the canal away back in 1894. Those who secured the charter were to build the canal, and in exchange they were to have the water-powers. They could not secure the money to dig the cana'l. Why? Because the value of the water-powers, the revenue they hoped to get therefrom, did not in those days amount to very much. That charter expired and has been renewed from time to time, and now a new man has got hold of it. Power to-day is worth money, and he be-


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I am sure the
hon. gentleman does not want to misstate the facts. There are two interests in the Carillon power. I regret to say that many speakers refer to this as the only matter of contention in this bill, but I would remind my hon. friend that Carillon is only one of the many powers on the Ottawa river, and it is the only power on the Ottawa river in which there are these two interests. The Hydro Electric, with which Sir Herbert Holt is associated-I do not know whether he controls it or not-has no interest in any power other than the Carillon, which, as I say, is only one of a dozen on the Ottawa river.


Edward James Young: I understand
my hon. friend's contention, but here is the point: the Carillon is one of the essential units of the Georgian bay canal, and if you alienate that power from the rest of the system' the canal will never be built. And that is the trouble. It is the bone of contention at the present time, for it is the one power for which, there is a market to-day. As time goes on, however, and as the country is settled, the demand for more power will extend to the other powers higher up the river, and the same question will present itself again.
A gentleman asked me the other day which of these two interests was likely to win in the struggle, and I told him I did not know, but that so far as I could see the Holt interests had had the better of it so far. I say that because they have succeeded in getting on their side all the advocates of public ownership. It is a peculiar situation to find the advocates of public ownership, the bitterest opponents of private enterprise in

Georgian Bay Canal Company
power as in other things, lining up on the side of a ccmpany whose aim is to secure a monopoly of power in Canada.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Does the hon. member
imply that the group in this section of the House who have taken a firm stand on this question are backing the Holt interests or will do so under any consideration?


Edward James Young: No, I do not
imply that, but I do imply that the Holt interests have been wily enough to persuade these gentlemen to help them pull the chestnuts out of the fire. That is the point.


Milton Neil Campbell: Let me assure the hon. member that the group in this section of the House will oppose the alienation of these rights in any part of the system.


Edward James Young: I have no doubt my hon. friend is sincere when he says that after they have eliminated the Sifton interests and have pulled these chestnuts out of the fire for the Holt interests, when the Holt interests want this power they also will be eliminated.


Milton Neil Campbell: We certainly so intend,
and I hope my hon. friends will assist us.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Does my hon. friend speak only for himself or for his group?


Milton Neil Campbell: I think I am speaking
for every member in this section of the House.


Edward James Young: There was once a young man who said in his heart, "I will serve the devil to-day because it suits my purpose, but to-morrow when he wants me to serve him I will refuse."


An hon. MEMBER:: Was he from Weyburn?
Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn). When the morrow came he found that once having enlisted in the service of the devil he could not get his discharge.


Milton Neil Campbell: I hope my hon. friend
will take the lesson to heart.


Edward James Young: The group who
were wily enough to secure the cooperation of hon. members in that corner to serve their purpose in this case will be equally cunning in securing their cooperation and assistance in another case.


Mr. HEAPS:: I object to the use of such
language in this House. I think it most unfair and the hon. member should withdraw those remarks. So far as I am concerned no one ever saw me in connection with this matter and I have not been influenced by any
member of this House or anyone outside the House. I do not think aspersions of that kind should be cast on any hon. members of this House, and I think the remark should be withdrawn.
Mr. YOUNG \Weyburn):	I am not casting any aspersions on the character or integrity of any hon. member in that comer of the House. I simply say that in taking the stand they have taken they are doing the very thing the Holt interests desire; hon. members are pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for those interests. I do not doubt that my friends are as honourable as men can be, but those are the facts. Will any man say that their conduct in this matter is not acceptable to the Holt interests?


Abraham Albert Heaps: In answer to that question
I can say that so far as the Holt interests are concerned, they will get just as much consideration from me as the Sifton interests, and I hope my hon. friend will follow our example and let us know where he stands.


Edward James Young: That is what I intend to do. It seems to me that in some quarters far too much stress is laid on public ownership; there_ is a disposition in some quarters to think that water-powers, canals, railways and public utilities generally exist for the purpose of being owned, and that the essential thing is who owns them, and where the title deed rests. To me that is of secondary importance; the essential consideration to my mind is not whether the title deeds to these utilities rest in the public treasury or in the strong boxes of private individuals, but what kind of service they give and what it costs.


Milton Neil Campbell: I might ask my hon.
friend if the one is not entirely dependent upon the other?


Edward James Young: Not necessarily. We have had cases where private ownership has been very much abused, and the same thing has happened under public ownership. I think everyone will admit that the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission has been signally successful, but I sometimes wonder whether its success is not due almost entirely to Sir Adam Beck and his associates, and I wonder if Sir Adam Beck had been a believer in private ownership the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission would have achieved less success. That is a question worth considering.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the hon. member mention any electrical utility which is publicly owned and which has not been a success?



Georgian Bay Canal Company


Edward James Young: I do not know that 1 can, off hand. Figures have been quoted in this debate to show that power in Ontario is sold at less than it costs just over the line in the United States, where I believe power is developed under private ownership. Is that difference due to the question of ownership? Let us suppose the power developed at Niagara and sold in the United States was developed under public ownership and sold at cost; what would be the situation? Over there a market exists for ten or twenty times the amount of power available; the state hydro-electric commission, if such existed, would be selling power to a portion of the community at a very low cost while other members of the same community would have to get power from other sources at a higher cost, and this situation would exist. The state government would be selling power to one man at a lower cost than that man's competitor paid for power, in the same neighbourhood.


Milton Neil Campbell: Would the public suffer from a condition of that kind?


Edward James Young: Some industries would be discriminated against.


Milton Neil Campbell: Some people would revive an advantage.


Edward James Young: Yes, some people vould get cheaper power. All the people would build a system to give cheap power m some of the people while the remainder would have to get power at a higher cost. That situation does not exist in Canada, and is not likely to exist here for many years yet.


Milton Neil Campbell: Not so long as we maintain the principle of public ownership.


Edward James Young: If the public
took control of all the water-power in this country and if our population should increase to such an extent that there was not sufficient power for everyone, some people would have to go without, and those who could not get cheap power would have to obtain their power from coal or some other source at a higher cost.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On the same basis, would the hon. member claim that the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission should increase their rates to the level of the rates prevailing in the province of Quebec?


Edward James Young: I do not say that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: At present Ontario manufacturers have an advantage over those of Quebec on account of the difference in the rate.
rM.\ Heaps.]


Edward James Young: I think my hon. friend has missed my point. I do not mean to say that Ontario should have the same rates as Quebec, but I do say that if Ontario had a market for more power than could be provided, those who were getting cheap power would be getting it in part at the expense of those who had to get power from other sources.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Does the hon. gentleman say that in the United States, where there are two rates prevailing, in consequence of that fact the lower rate should be raised until there was equality? Consequently would not the same argument apply in the province of Ontario, as compared with the province of Quebec? Would the hon. member raise the price in Ontario to meet the price in Quebec?


Edward James Young: Ontario and
Quebec are two provinces under two different governments; I am speaking of what would happen in one province or one state under one government. If the supply of power were far short of the demand, is it fair to all the people to ask them to furnish power to a portion of the people at less than the remainder can obtain their power for? To my mind the proper thing would be to sell the power for what it would bring in the market, and use the surplus revenue to reduce taxation. I think that would be quite in keeping with the stand of my hon. friends in the matter of the single tax. Public ownership in that case, where a portion of the people get their power at cost while the remainder of the people are deprived of power, is not quite in keeping with the position my hon. friends take in the matter of the single tax.
A very interesting question was raised by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) in regard to the right of this country to have that canal built at the expense of the people living along its banks. He argued that if you make the power pay for the building of the canal you make the people who live near the canal pay for their power, while the surplus would be used to build' a canal for the benefit of people in a remote part of the Dominion, or for the Dominion as a whole. That is a very interesting question, and there is something in the hon. gentleman's argument. Who should be entitled to the power developed from a waterfall? Should its use be limited to the people living in the immediate vicinity of the development, or should those living perhaps two hundred miles away be permitted to participate also in the benefit? That question has not been settled, and it is one which might well be profitably

Georgian Bay Canal Company
discussed by the committee to whom it is proposed to refer this bill. Apparently those hon. members opposed to the bill do not want this question, and kindred issues, to be investigated. The Minister of Railways pointed out that there had been certain happenings in connection with the question of the lease of power which ought to be investigated. I am sure my hon. friendis in the comer yonder do not want that investigation suppressed. They must be willing that all these matters should be looked into and! T am quite sure that all hon. members on this side are willing also. I say to hon. gentlemen, therefore: Let the bill go to the committee so that anything which needs investigation can be inquired into.
I think the most ingenious argument in opposition to the bill came from the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett). The hon. gentleman said: We cannot pass this bill, we cannot renew the charter to these people, because the water of the Ottawa river belongs to the federal government and the pebbles over which it flows are the property of the provincial government. He argued that the federal government could not build dams because they would have to be erected on property belonging to the provinces. Similarly we might argue that the provinces cannot build those dams because they would hold back water which belongs to the federal authorities.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is not that precisely the principle wlhich Premier Taschereau stated only a few days ago?


Edward James Young: Perhaps it is, but it serves to illustrate the problem involved which needs solution. There is a problem here which should be discussed and considered very carefully. But we cannot carry on the necessary inquiry in the House itself. We cannot bring experts here and ask them questions. We cannot put men on oath and examine them carefully. If the bill is sent to committee, however, we can carry out such measures, and there will be some hope of arriving at a proper solution.


Abraham Albert Heaps: All the questions to which my hon. friend has referred could be taken up even if the bill is killed.


Edward James Young: No, they could not. If we kill this bill we ruin forever the prospect of building the Georgian bay canal.


Milton Neil Campbell: The interests behind this bill have no intention of building the canal.


Edward James Young: Surely my hon. friend does not say that the canal should
32649-102i
never be built when the bill dealing with it has not even been sent to a committee for investigation.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not say it should never be built. What I do say is that the interests behind this bill have no intention of building the canal.


Edward James Young: If that be true
let us bring those people before the committee. Let us put them on the stand and examine them as to their intention. Let us examine them to see whether they are in a position to build a canal, if they can raise the money to go on with the project, or what they are going to do. All we ask for is an investigation. Voting to send this bill to a committee does not commit us to the principle of private ownership or of public ownership; all it means is that an opportunity is afforded to have a thorough investigation.
There is one thing which we all know and which the country should know also-that the tactics adopted by hon. gentlemen opposite during the last six weeks in blocking this bill had the result of depriving every member of his right to introduce legislation this session. There are on the order paper no less than forty-three resolutions, many of which stand in the names of hon. gentlemen in the corner diagonally opposite from where I am sitting. Not one of those resolutions will come up this session. Why? Because the tactics adopted by these same gentlemen have rendered that impossible. They have dammed back the proposed legislation just as effectively as the construction of dams on the Ottawa would dam back the waters of that river.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was not the hon. gentleman himself guilty of similar tactics?


Edward James Young: What tactics?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Talking against time. My
hon. friend talked against a certain resolution last week to prevent it from going to committee.


Edward James Young: We on this side did not block legislation for six weeks. In the case referred to I do not think I talked at as great length as my hon. friend did.


Abraham Albert Heaps: You were opposed to the
principle of the resolution.


Edward James Young: I do not like
to make the suggestion because it is uncharitable, but is it possible that these hon. gentlemen have resolutions on the order paper which they do not want discussed, and are deliberately holding up this bill in order to dam back the proposed legislation?

Georgian Bay Canal Company


John Evans: I should like to say that
there are gentlemen in this part of the chamber who stood for public ownership of public utilities long before the movement was introduced into politics. Does not the hon. gentleman admit the principle of the bill when he argues that it should go before a committee, and will he state whether he believes in public or private ownership of public utilities?


Edward James Young: I have spent
considerable time trying to explain where I stood on the matter of private ownership. I think I told the House I did not attach very much importance to the question of ownership, but that what was important was the character of the service and what it would cost.
I have spoken longer than I intended, but perhaps it was not altogether my fault. Let me conclude by saying that the question before the House is whether we diall or shall not insist on our undoubted right to investigate these matters before a committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the question
before the House. I ask the Speaker if he will be good enough to read the question. When the question is read hon. members will know exactly what it is. What my hon. friend has stated is not the question before the House although he has frequently said that it is.


Edward James Young: That will be the result of the vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the question
before the House.


Edward James Young: That will be the result of the vote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will not be the result of the vote either.


Edward James Young: If the motion
tarries this bill will go to committee where it can be examined and dissected, and then killed or reported as the committee sees fit. When we send the bill to committee we do not bind ourselves to pass it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to have
the question before the House read. It is my privilege to have that done.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The amendment moved by Mr. Guthrie reads-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to have
the question before the House read, and the amendment also.


John Frederick Johnston: The bill before the House is the bill standing in the name of
[Mr. E. J. Young.)
the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). The hon. gentleman has moved that Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Pardon me, is this not the question? That the bill be now read a second time? That is what we want to get. My hon. friend says it is not. I say that it is, and I should like to be corrected if I am wrong.
Mr. DEPUTY, SPEAKER:	That is the
question.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly.


John Frederick Johnston: The question
is
That Bill No. 78 be read a second time, to which Mr. Guthrie moved in amendment, seconded by Sir George Perley:
That all the words after the word "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The character and object of this bill involve matters of grave national and provincial importance, and are such as to constitute it a measure of public policy which ought not to be dealt with by any private bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now my hon. friend
knows what the question is.


Edward James Young: What will be
the result of the vote?


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the question to debate, which the hon. member has not debated in any part of his speech.


Edward James Young: What will be
the result of the vote? If the motion carries the bill goes to committee.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: Mr
Speaker, I do not intend to depart from my customarj' practice of seldom and then only briefly addressing .this House, but I cannot record my vote upon the question now before the House without giving some of the reasons why I intend to support the amendment. The subject has been exhaustively discussed. The logical and forceful speech of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) and the convincing eloquence and close scrutiny of the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) leave practically nothing to be said. I must confess that I was astonished a moment ago at the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), namely; "If we can get a canal for nothing, why should we not accept it?" He put that question as if he had considered that it terminated the whole discussion. I ask the Minister of Agriculture if in all this country there is a single canal, large or small, from the Newmarket canal in North York

Georgian Bay Canal Company
to the Welland canal, that has been acquired for nothing. There is not one, nor will there ever be a canal built in Canada for nothing. The taxpayers pay for every canal that we have. Therefore I take it that the Minister of Agriculture, in his usual good-natured and facetious manner, did not mean his remark to be taken seriously.
The question resolves itself into two parts: the transportation or canal part and the water-power part. In respect of the canal I say with full assurance that there is not an hon. member sitting in this House, there is not a reading man in all Canada outside of an insane asylum, and I should not think there would be many within the walls of such an institution, who believe that the money to build this canal, considered solely as a transportation system, can be obtained in any financial centre in the world. I recall well some thirty-three years ago when the charter was originally granted, when estimates were made as to the cost of the undertaking, and at that time the cost was placed at approximately S100,000,000. If $100,000,000 were required thirty-three years ago to construct a twenty or twenty-two foot waterway from Georgian bay to Montreal, I submit to the knowledge and intelligence of memhers that it will require at least two and one-half times that amount to do the same work to-day. That is not an exaggerated estimate, and so we arrive, moderately, conservatively, at a sum of $250,000,000 as requisite to build a system of navigation known as the Georgian bay canal capable of passing vessels with a draft of twenty feet or as they are sometimes termed, 10.000 ton vessels, the largest that navigate lake Superior and the other upper lakes.
First of all, even though the bonds were backed by the Dominion of Canada that money would cost close upon 5 per cent. Over and above that you have the cost of operating and the cost of repairs and maintenance. Therefore, figure it out as you will, you cannot arrive at a lower sum than S15.000.000 a year in connection with this project. What sane financier, what sane person is going to put a dollar into an enterprise from which not one cent of revenue is to be derived? Let it be remembered that I am speaking of the transportation scheme and not at the moment of the water-power end of.it.
The promoters of this bill profess that they will complete this waterway to a depth capable of floating vessels of 10,000 tons. Where in the name of common sense are they going to get the money? The thing upon its face is absurd; it is too nonsensical for any serious
man to mention for a moment. It will take $15,000,000 a year to carry the cost of this canal if it' is built as professed by the promoters of the bill. In a circular which has been addressed to every member of this House the statement is made that by this proposed waterway there will be a saving of three cents a bushel in the cost of freighting from Fort William to the port of Montreal. Upon the basis of the largest quantity of not simply wheat, but grain, namely 295,000,000 bushels, that has come out of lake Superior ports-and I hope in the future that figure will be greatly exceeded-this saving of three cents a bushel will represent a little less than $9,000,000. Why, it would pay the taxpayers of Canada well-it would be money in their pockets-if they gave a subsidy of three cents a bushel to the farmers of the northwest for every bushel of grain they exported in the big crop year of 1925-26, because instead of the taxpayers of this country paying $15,000,000 a year to maintain the waterway, including of course interest on the cost, they would have to pay only $9,000,000 on a basis of an economy of three cents a bushel.
This is a point which has always appealed to me in connection with this question. After due consideration many years ago the Dominion government and the parliament of Canada concluded that the best waterway from lake Superior, lake Huron and the other upper lakes to the sea was by the Welland canal to the St. Lawrence river, or what is popularly known as the St. Lawrence waterway. We have invested already upwards of $60,000,000, I think, in the Welland canal, and it is not at all unlikely that before the enlarged canal is completed the cost will run to $75,000,000. The proposal is to have the transhipping go through in smaller vessels which can pass through the St. Lawrence canal, but I would think that ultimately, as soon as the finances of the country permit, the sensible, businesslike project would be to enlarge the St. Lawrence, so as to permit the largest of the upper lake freighters to pass right down to the port of Montreal, or, if you like, the port of Quebec, where transhipment would take place. Are we to enter deliberately, with our eyes open, into competition, by means of this Georgian bay canal, with the St. Lawrence waterways, in which we have already invested a great' many million dollars, and in which every day of the year we are burying more and more money? A few years ago, in a fit of frenzied finance, the government and the parliament of this country

and I am bound to say with the approval of the electors-built three transcontinental railways where two at most would

Georgian Bay Canal Company
have sufficed. There is no one, I venture to say, who to-day does not regard that policy as a fatuous one, as an uneconomical one. We know that a good deal of the burden of taxation under whidh this country labours arises out of that extravagant railway policy of a few years ago, and yet hon. members stand up in this House and ask us to pursue the same fatuous policy in connection with water transportation and to build two canal systems where one is adequate.
Assuming, merely for the purpose of argument, that the Georgian bay canal project will be completed in the course of years, every bushel of grain that passes down it will be taken from the other waterway, the St. Lawrence, which we are completing at very great cost. The total revenue of all canals of Canada is less than $1,000,000, and of that $900,000 two-thirds are derived from elevating charges on the Welland canal and from some water leases on the Lachine canal. But I am glad to say that there is not one dollar of tolls upon our canals, and yet the promoters of this bill say to us that they will spend $250,000,000 upon the project without the imposition of one single dollar of tolls from which they can derive one penny of revenue. Sir, it seems to me that the project, as a canal, ought literally to be laughed out of the House.
Then we come to the other aspect, namely, the waterways. My attitude-I speak only for myself-in respect to water-power is that the matter should be left entirely to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. My understanding is that under a not very remote judgment of the Privy Council it was decided that the riverbeds and the shores belonged' to the province, and without a dissenting voice the legislature of. Ontario, although overwhelmingly Conservative in its party complexion, and the legislature of Quebec, equally overwhelmingly Liberal in its complexion, unanimously passed resolutions condemning this bill and asking parliament to throw it out. Surely those resolutions ought to receive some consideration in this House. I recall well many years ago, and the hon. member for Muskolca (Mr. McGibbon) alluded to it in his address, when, misguidedly, a Conservative government, prompted by the request of one of their supporters, namely, the late Dalton McCarthy entered into a controversy with the province of Ontario over many serious questions such for instance as the Streams Bill, another relating to the licensing for the sale of intoxicating liquors, and other matters. In every instance the Dominion government was beaten, and the Conservative party lost caste in that provfMr. White.]
ince for many years because of its attitude towards the provincial government of Ontario. I warn the government, whether this bill goes to second reading or not, that if it cracks the party whip and induces members to vote on account of party allegiance for the second reading, it will be digging its own grave as sure as death and taxation.
There is another aspect of this question which in my judgment has not been adequately stressed, and it is the danger of getting into litigation over these waterways. At this moment the holders of the charter, popularly known as the Sifton interests, have not one single copper of vested rights. They acquired this charter, so the story runs, for speculative purposes and for none other. The charter expires on the 1st of May next, a matter of four weeks and a few days, and if the charter is allowed to expire the gentlemen who entered into this speculation will be out a few dollars. Dealing with the matter of vested rights, these people have had this charter for thirty-three years, and can any hon. member tell me where a single sod has been turned towards the construction of the work? The story goes-and I do not vouch for it, but I would not be surprised if there were some truth in it, knowing the moderation of the gentlemen who hold this charter- that they are willing to relinquish it for a recompense of $2,000,000. I admire their moderation! I wish I possessed even a modicum of it. But if we put this bill into committee, and if we report it back from committee-emasculated if you like, not even a skeleton, a bare shadow of the bill as it had been in the past-we will in a measure have confirmed certain rights to these interests. I am against such a course. Litigation will follow. No one knows it better than the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). The provinces of Ontario and Quebec have already stated in the most unequivocal language that they will have recourse to the courts. If you give the promoters any kind of standing room, they will make it so difficult to move along the lines of the development of power that the whole project will be held up for an indefinite time.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the members of the government have expressed no opinion upon the merits or demerits of this bill. What may be in their minds I of course, not being a Stuart Cumberland, cannot tell; but if their intent be to so emasculate the measure in committee that it will become innocuous and absolutely harmless, it seems to me that it is upon the principle of the prevention of cruelty to animals-that in order to make the

Georgian Bay Canal Company
operation less painful they should take an inch at a time off the dog's tail. As we all know, this is not an ordinary private bill. It would be better described as a public bill in the hands of a private member.
The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) told us this afternoon that he has had difficulty in making up his mind. He wants more information, he wants experts called and the matter gone into fully before the committee within-as we all hope-two weeks from prorogation. But if he has any doubt as to the meaning of the bill, I think he stands alone in this House and in the country, for its merits or demerits have been discussed on platforms and in the press ad nauseam, and there is no one so dull, no one so blind or stupid, as not to be aware that this is a fight by the promoters for power rights, and that it is not for one moment to be taken seriously as a transportation project.
Of course, we can all understand and sympathize sincerely with the position of the Prime Minister. There are such things, I suppose, as political debts. There is sometimes political work which must be paid for. I would not be surprised in the least if the desire of the first minister to send this bill to a committee is a payment on account, as it were, for services rendered by one of the promoters in an effort to avenge the defeat which in 1925 the Prime Minister sustained in North York. It is not my purpose, Mr. Speaker, to weary the House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


Robert Smeaton White: No, I am
going to close, I will not sajr with an appeal to the [DOT] House, for I do not think there is an intelligent member sitting here who is not already fully conversant with the subject. There is nothing new to be said with respect to it. Ah! yes, there is another statement I should like to refer to. There has emanated from more than one member to your right, Sir, the statement that this is a fight between the Holt interests and the Sifton interests. I suppose as a Montrealer I might be suspected of lending my sympathy to the Holt interests but let me say that I give it to neither. So far as my voice would have anything to do with the result, I would wish that the provincial governments be permitted to settle this question. Let them be permitted to determine whether the Sifton interests or the Holt interests are to be paramount in this power development. As to myself, I care not a snap of the finger for the Holt interests any more than I care for the Sifton interests. I cannot believe that this House will-I was going to use the word stultify, but that may
be too strong-I cannot believe that this House will make such an exhibition of imbecility-


Ernest Lapointe: That would be milder.


Robert Smeaton White: Very well,
I will use it. I cannot believe that this House will make such an exhibition of imbecility as to give second reading to a measure which, if it ever emerges from the special committee, will have no other consequences than that of involving large and important interests in litigation to the prejudice of the people of Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. W. K. BALDWIN (Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I had not any intention of speaking on this bill, but as I championed it in past sessions I deem it necessary to express my views on this occasion. I well remember making a speech favouring the Georgian bay canal, and the late lamented Emmanuel B. Devlin, the member for Wright, afterwards said in my hearing, although he did not know I was within range of his voice, "Baldwin has knocked the props from under my feet."
I speak in favour of the Georgian bay canal as I would of any other great waterway for the development of this country, for I believe this is the cheapest kind of transportation. A member on the other side of the House last week gave us an historical resume of canals back even before the birth of Christ and told us all about the waterways of China and thus down through history to comparatively modern times, showing that he had at least studied this method of transportation. Today we find canals are not paying propositions. I notice quite recently that the Erie canal is not doing as much business as the old canal did. When I spoke of the Georgian bay canal project on former occasions there was not then any real appreciation of the wonderful assets we had in the hinterland of Quebec and Ontario. We had pretty much the same railway facilities then as we have to-day, but there was not the same necessity as now exists for the construction of a canal such as this. In the interior of Quebec and Ontario there is a wonderful mineral country and just now large sums are being spent in the production of gold, of which considerable quantities have already been found. It is intended to delve still deeper into the earth in search of this and other precious metals, and with iron ore, which the geologists believe to exist in that part of the country, together with copper, silver and other assets which undoubtedly are waiting tc be taken, there are great prospects ahead of these provinces. I do not think that the country there could be better or more cheaply served in the way of transportation than by

Georgian Bay Canal Company
means of such a waterway as is proposed. Our mineral products in these sections of Quebec and Ontario, of which I am speaking, would afford enormous traffic even though so far only the fringe of that country has been touched.
This question involves a conflict between private and public ownership. In my opinion, which differs from the view advanced by my hon. friend from Mount Royal (Mr. White), if the hydro-electric posibilities are such as have been depicted, this great wealth should contribute to the cost of constructing the canal. I believe that it could be so arranged as to have the revenue from this hydro-electric development pay in time, if not immediately, for the Georgian bay canal. If it comes to a question of American versus Canadian interests I would1 not hesitate to favour the development of this power by our own people. Someone has said that this is a matter of Montreal or the Holt interests as against Toronto and the Sifton interests. However that may be, I would have no hesitation in any instance in advocating that Canadians be allowed to develop this power rather than hand it over to American interests who, I am sure, would have but one purpose in view, namely, the exportation of power to the United States, making us hewers of wood and drawers of water to their own advantage. That I would oppose on every occasion. If hydroelectric power is to be developed an enormous amount of labour and capital will be required. Let us keep these in Canada; let it never be said that transmission lines in connection with the development of power along this route were constructed by outsiders for the benefit of foreign labour. Let us see to it that our great heritage of white coal, of which we have more probably than exists in any other country, we have been able'to take advantage of and to exploit ourselves.
We are prone to speak of the vastness of this country, but I think I am within the mark when I say there is a possibility of our developing 20,000,000 horse-power in this country. This is one of the most glorious visions before Canadians to-day. I firmly believe that if the Georgian bay canal is built noiw, or at any time in the future, it should be built with the great water-power possibilities in view. I do not urge any haste in such a stupendous undertaking as this. In my own private affairs I have never robbed the future for the sake of the present. I believe in conservation. I believe in conserving all our resources, whether they be timber, our fisheries or our minerals, and not in being greedy and thinking only of ourselves. Let us think of posterity.

This question cannot be decided without the most careful consideration. There is a. multitude of complex considerations that must be weighed:	provincial and riparian rights,
federal rights, and all the rest of it-matters which this parliament cannot deal with without a thorough investigation. I believe the people are intelligent enough not to do anything that will divide province against province or the provinces against the Dominion. Let us do nothing that will result in litigation. I have confidence enough in the good sense of our people to believe that nothing of this sort will happen. It seems' to me that the best way in which this whole question can be handled is to have the bill referred to the committee where it could be fully discussed.
We have heard a good deal about this charter hanging fire for thirty-three years. What are the reasons why no progress has been made towards the construction of the canal? The great, appalling war came along, and are we not proud of Canada to-day to see that her finances are in such good condition after that great struggle? Not only did the war interfere but the construction of the Welland canal was undertaken, and those who have seen that canal will know that it is a most ponderous undertaking; in the course of that construction it has been found necessary to dig through great banks of clay which have no solid foundation, entailing an enormous amount of work. I say without hesitation that I believe the Georgian bay canal should have been built first, which would have promoted the development of the tremendous resources of those portions of Quebec and Ontario in that vicinity; I believe a greater benefit would have been obtained to this country if the Welland canal had been allowed to wait until the construction of the Georgian bay canal had been finished. Some'hon. members representing constituencies bordering the great lakes may not agree with that, but I maintain that the Georgian bay canal would have been a greater asset to the trade and commerce of this country and would have hastened the development of our great natural resources.
I do not care to elaborate upon this matter, but I am emphatically in favour of this bill being sent to committee where those who are backing it may appear and make known their promises and pledges in this connection. I would not allow the great hydro-electric possibilities of this country to be destroyed without, first making certain that this canal will be built. I am not enough of an engineer even to approximate the cost of this undertaking, but I believe this canal should be built piece by piece, beginning at the Ottawa end if you will and gradually extending it until

Georgian Bay Canal Company
it is completed. Not one horse-power of hydro-electric energy should be sacrificed or given away to anyone, whether they be Canadian or foreign, until a binding agreement has been made between the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and the federal government. These three governments should work in conjunction and in perfect unanimity, under an agreement which will be binding upon each for all time, in order that this may be a source of great national development and an undertaking of which all Canada may be proud.
Mr. R. E. RYERjSON (Brantford City): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up more than a few moments of the time of the House on this question, but representing as I do an industrial centre which has enjoyed for many years the full benefits of the hydro-electric system of Ontario, I deem it my duty to protest against the granting of a renewal of this charter and against any measure which may appear to menace the future of this great public-owned enterprise.
For the purpose of a better understanding of the attitude of the people of Ontario, and particularly those served by hydro in their relation to this question, I would like to state a few facts pertaining to the early h:story and present status of this project. The Ontario Hydro Electric system did not originate with the Ontario government or with any one individual, as has been frequently stated on the floor of thin House. The entire plan was carried out and now stands as a partnership affair between the government of Ontario and the municipalities served by the system, both as to construction and financial obligation. The government is responsible for the purchasing, development and transmission of electrical energy to the gates of the municipalities which, on their part, take care of the construction and maintenance of distribution plants and stepping-down stations. A small league of municipalities comprising the cities and towns of Toronto, London, Brantford, Guelph, Stratford, Woodstock and Ingersoll were the initial pioneers in advocating and planning this great development.
The early efforts of this league were directed towards the preservation, development and public ownership of the vast potential power at Niagara Falls, which was rapidly being sacrificed and given away to large private interests, greatly to the advantage of American industry and American citizens. This pioneer work, which included surveys, engineers'' reports and a general campaign of publicity, was carried on for a number of years. In 1903, at the request of these municipalities, the Ontario government of that date passed an act authorizing the creation of the Ontario Power Commission, with power to investigate the feasibility of the development and transmission of Niagara power to points in central and southern Ontario, and to prepare plans for such a purpose. The personnel of the commission was named by the league of municipalities, and the entire cost was borne by that league. Those nominated to the commission were:
E. W. B. Snyder, St. Jacobs, president.
P. W. Ellis, Toronto.
W. F. Cockshutt, Brantford. _
Adam Beck, London.
R. F. Fessenden, electrical engineer, Washington, D.C.
Before the final report of this commission was completed a number of other municipalities joined the league, including Hamilton, Dundas, Paris, St. Thomas, St. Marys, Mitchell, Kitchener, Waterloo, Hespeler, Preston and Galt. After the completion of this report and at the request of this now influential league of municipalities-and with the persuasive powers of Adam Beck-the then government under the leadership of Sir James Whitney adopted the plans and took over the project. The Ontario Hydro Electric Commission was created, under whose management and supervision the original plans were developed and extended into the present system, which has saved millions of dollars to the consumers of power in this province. The people of these municipalities have watched with a justifiable pride the wonderful success and growth of hydro, and naturally look with alarm and suspicion on any action by this parliament which would appear to interfere with or jeopardize the future success of this great public undertaking.
I not only voice my own disapproval of this bill, but desire as well to add the protest of the city of Brantford, which unanimously passed the following resolution:
That the council of the municipality of Brantford respectfully urges the parliament of Canada not to renew the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, known as Bill No. 78, as in our opinion this bill is not in the interest of the province of Ontario as it is an attempt to deprive the people of this province of their right to the powers to be developed from the waters of the Ottawa river, and further that this charter has been in existence for thirty-three years, and no actual construction has taken place, and we believe the renewal of this charter would be contrary and prejudicial to the public interest.
I also have a communication from the town council of the town of Paris, enclosing a similar resolution, which reads as follows:

Georgian Bay Canal Company
That the council of the municipality of Paris, Ontario, respectfully urges the parliament of Canada not to renew the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal ComPany, known as Bill No. 78, as in our opinion this bill is not in the interest of the province of Ontario as it is an attempt to deprive the people of this province of their right to the powers to be developed from the water of the Ottawa river, and further that this charter has been in existence for thirty-three years and no actual construction has taken place, and we believe the renewal would be contrary and prejudicial to the public interest.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. W. J. WARD (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have been an interested spectator during this debate which has now lasted for some three weeks, and I have at times wondered why there is this wide divergence of views on the question which is now before the House. As I look across the way at the members representing the United Farmers of Alberta., also my good Labour members and other members on the other side who in the most trenchant language condemn those who would send this bill to committee, I think I can assure them-and I would preface my remarks by saying that honesty and sincerity is written all over their countenances-that with all their professions they are not more true nor more loyal to the principle of public ownership than are those who would treat this bill as all other similar bills are treated, namely, by sending it to committee. Oh, yes, but someone says, when we vote on the second reading, when we submit the measure to committee, we are committed to' the principle of it. I am inclined to think that theory was rather badly shot in 1925 when the Petersen contract was before the House. We all recall very well that long drawn out debate, and members on the opposite side of the House who were opposing that measure going to committee declared that we were admitting the principle of subsidies to steamship companies or the principle of subsidies itself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was a marked distinction. That was a public government measure, not a regular private measure, and it went to a special committee for consideration.


William John Ward: That is a stronger reason why this, being a private bill, should go to committee.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would like to remind my hon. friend that on that particular memorable occasion to which he refers, the Prime Minister notified the House that, -notwithstanding all that he said, a vote on that occasion would not be considered as a vote for the principle of the Petersen contract.


William John Ward: Quite so, and there and then we established the precedent. I think it was taken for granted upon that occasion that we were not committed in any way to the principle of the measure, and I am sure there are a large number of hon. members who may vote to send this bill to committee, who do not consider that they are thereby committing themselves on the question of public versus private ownership.
I was not surprised at the course which our Conservative friends followed. It was a very characteristic one; they took that same natural Conservative attitude, smug, selfrighteous, that they are the only people who are defending the rights of the masses. I think I can assure them also -that there are in this House others who are just as anxious, just as determined as are my good friends the Conservatives, to promote the interests of the great mass of the people. The Conservative party, at least up to the present, have never been conspicuous in respect to the rights of that great mass of the people known as the taxpayers of this country, and particularly in respect to public ownership.
We have, however, in this particular question one feature that, is unique in the economic life of this Dominion, if not of the American continent, in that the river in question, the Ottawa, which has been recognized for at least a hundred years as a navigable waterway, forms an interprovincial boundary. I db not presume to be an authority on constitutional matters, but according to our constitution the water of this stream belongs to the people of Canada. The river bed, as the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) told us the other night, belongs to the provinces, and therefore he contended-and I think it was an ingenious argument-that this set up an (insurmountable problem. Let me tell him that there is no problem at all because, while it may be true that the river bed belongs to the provinces, the Dominion has the right of expropriation at any time and can expropriate for any purposes which it sees fit.
But this constitutes an added reason why this whole question should1 go 'before the committee. We have, as I have said, a stream of which the water belongs to the Dominion and the potential powers belong to the provinces.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
On one side of the Ottawa river we have a province that is avowedly in favour of private ownership and on the other side a province professing public ownership. I wonder if our friends who are opposing this measure and who are declaring that this project should be developed as a national undertaking, as I quite agree it should be, will tell U3 just how under those circumstances they are going to develop the Ottawa river. We are up a blind alley.
Is that not a fundamental reason why this whole measure should go to committee where we can get some light in order to pass an intelligent judgment upon it?
I would not have taken part in this debate had it not been that I believe the time has arrived-and I am very much surprised that up to date no one in this chamber has suggested it-for the appointment of a federal hydro-electric power commission. In Ontario of course we have the hydro power commission, and someone may say, "Well, why not let the provinces attend to such matters as the controlling of hydro power?" Very true, but it has to be remembered that the three prairie provinces do not own or control their resources, and I am told by competent engineers that there is known to them at the present time something in excess of ten million of potential hydro power in these three prairie provinces. I have been told that there is something in excess of seven million now known in the province of Manitoba alone. We now witness the struggle that is going on, as we are told by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) between two great financial rings to get control of the powers of what is just a stream; for the Ottawa river is only a little stream compared with the Nelson, the Churchill, the Mackenzie and the Yukon rivers. Someone has said that there is &, million and a quarter horse-power involved. I have made some inquiries and I find that these same competent engineers tell us that they will never develop more than 750,000 horse-power on the Ottawa river. Now we have all this struggle, three weeks of the time of parliament, practically every hour which has been allotted to private members for the consideration of private bills and private measures has been given over to this one question, a matter involving 750,000 horse-power, while as I say there is known to the engineers at least ten million horsepower certain to be developed in the three prairie provinces. These natural resources are to-day controlled by the federal parliament, and the experience, Mr. Speaker, of this long range administration of the last two years has not been very satisfactory to western Canada in respect either to power development or to pulpwood and many other resources which I might mention. The time has arrived when it is essential that these powers should be developed in the best interests of the people of Canada; and if my Conservative friends are as desirous as they appear to be-and I think they are-they will support at once the suggestion of a federal hydropower commission which will take charge of every power in Canada, whether it be on the Ottawa, the Nelson, or any other river. It may be of interest to this House to know that a certain group of financiers have already an option on the largest single power site on the Nelson river, known as the White Mud falls.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the hon. member give
us a little information about that particular matter?


William John Ward: I am not desirous of going
into the history of the matter, but a certain financial ring already has an option on this power site. I am given to understand that the International Paper Company js now endeavouring to get control of or to buy up the option. When the people of Manitoba are forced to stand by and see two foreign financial rings barter with their very birthright-that is the spectacle we have in Manitoba-with the five million of horse-power on the Nelson river, within about six hundred miles of the city of Winnipeg and about the same distance of some of our western cities, is it not patent to us that in the near future we must take drastic steps to control these powers for the people of western Canada, or of all of Canada if you like, rather than continue the policy which we have been following, of dealing them out in parcels to foreign interests, or to financial interests even though they are not foreign.
With the completion of the Hudson Bay railway; with the opening up of such great resources as are to be found on Belcher islands, where, I am given to understand the largest iron ore deposits on the American continent are to be found; with the vast pulpwood resources along the Nelson and Churchill rivers, we can readily see that by long range administration the best results cannot be obtained. I am making no reflection whatever upon our present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who is now in charge of these resources, but he has a big job on his hands. His task is far too great to enable him to give proper consideration to the resources of any one province and have them developed as they should be.
Before concluding I desire again to urge upon the government and upon this House the absolute necessity in my judgment of
Georgian Bay Canal Company

constituting in the very near future-as I think this would be an opportune time- a federal hydro power commission. I would not have risen at all were it not that I had hoped that during this debate some member on the front benches of the official opposition, or some member of the government, would have come forward with a suggestion that the time was ripe for the appointment of such a board. Without any doubt, by far the biggest question, economic or social, in the Dominion of Canada to-day is the matter of hydro development. There is no other single feature of our life that reaches into every avenue of our economic development as that of electricity, and as the years go by it will become increasingly important that the development of hydro must be preserved for the benefit of the people and not allowed to get into the hands of any great financial ring.
I am anxious-and I have no hesitation in saying so-to see this bill go to committee. I want to assure the House that I am not interested at all in the fortunes of either the Siftons or others.


Peter McGibbon: Help them along.


William John Ward: I have not been lobbied, I can assure the House, in any way by either the Siftons or the Holts. I want to say to the hon. member for Muskoka (Mt. Mc-Gibbon) that he need not fear. I want to be able to pass intelligent judgment on the matter. I do not think a solitary member of this House, including the hon member for Muskoka, is in a position to .render an intelligent decision upon this very important problem. I think it is absolutely essential that we send this bill to committee, if for no other reason than that out of that committee I hope will come a suggestion for the appointment of a federal hydro power commission.


George Halsey Perley: When I was speaking at the opening off this debate I referred to the fact that those interested in this bill, as well as the public generally and the newspapers, were very apt to refer to this matter only in connection with the Carillon canal and the Carillon power. I endeavoured to make it plain at the time that this is only part of tlhe issue before us to-day. I explained that it was an erroneous view and that the bill deals with all the powers on the Ottawa river, of which the Carillon is only one. This afternoon the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) referred to the matter.
I do not think I should have risen to say anything about it had not the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning)-the only member of the government Who up to this time has spoken on the subject-made a special 
point of the 'Carillon power. His remarks made on March 14, will be found at page 1194 of Hansard. The following is a short extract:
I deem it necessary to give to the House, if possible, some accurate information respecting the history of what I might call, "the bone of contention", because beyond any question that bone of contention is the Carillon power. There ls ri(d a member of the House who is not aware of that fact, nor is there a member who does not know also that the contention for the bone is, at tile present time, not between any public ownership bodies, but between two great private interests.
I disagree entirely with the hon. minister's statement. He might characterize the Carillon as the knuckle, but it is by no means the whole bone. Carillon is in the county of Argenteuil, which I have the honour to represent in this House. One end of the dam to be built at Carillon would be on that side of the river. The people of Carillon are very anxious to see this power developed, and they have waited for its development for thirty years, patiently or impatiently, which ever way you like to put it. I see in his seat the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) who by the courtesy of the electors represented Argenteuil during one parliament, from 1921 to 1925, but notwithstanding all the influence he then	had he	did	nothing	towards	thedevelopment of	this power.	There	arerumours	abroad	as	to who	controls	theGeorgian bay charter. There are also rumours	current	as	to who	controls	the
National Hydro-Electric Company, which has a lease of the Carillon falls from the Department of Railways and Canals. Personally I have no information as to who really controls, but I think I made it abundantly clear on the earlier occasion when I spoke on this bill that I am against the renewal of the Georgian bay charter. As for the lease of the waterpower at Carillon, I may say again for the information of the House "that in 1925 one of the gentlemen most interested in it came to the county and worked against me as strongly as he could in the election. Therefore I am not here to advocate their claims. But we want this power developed, provided always no right is given to export it. True, a great part of the power when developed would be sent to Montreal and other cities, but its development would be sure to lead to industries being established in the locality, and the people there need the power.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Railways and Canals is .wrong. Carillon is only one of the many water-powers covered by this bill. In order that every member may realize that that is the fact, I reiterate that

Georgian Bay Canal Company
this charter covers all the powers on the Ottawa river, the Mattawa river and the French river, and that Carillon is only one of those powers, although it is a large one. In other words, the rich prize that the promoters of this bill are seeking is the control of 200 miles of lake and river and rapids with a potential horsepower of a million and a half, as has been stated on several occasions while the bill has been before the House. On the Ottawa river there is a million and a quarter horse-power, and the power on the other two rivers will bring up the total to a million and a half or perhaps two million. That, I claim, is the bone of contention, and I hope hon. members will not allow any argument to becloud the issue on that point,
Now a few words as to the bill itself. Section 1 provides that:
The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, hereinafter called "the Company'', may commence the construction of its canals, or any of them,-[DOT]	.
or any of them be it noted.
-and expend fifty thousand dollars thereon, on or before the first day of May, one thousand nine and thirty, and may complete the said canals and put them in operation before the first day of May, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-six.
The section concludes:
-and if such construction is not commenced and such expenditure is not so made, or if the said canals are not completed and put in operation within the said periods respectively, the powers granted to the company by parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said canals and works as then remains uncompleted.
I draw particular attention of hon. members to these words:
-the powers granted to the company by parliament shall cease and be null and void, as respects so much of the said canals and works as then remains uncompleted.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, would it not be possible for the company under this authority to develop one or more of the water-powers and sell the electric energy without in any way operating a canal? In considering this point I will not refer to Carillon.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Since the hon. gentleman has seen fit to ask that question, will he kindly read the last portion of section 1 in the light of section 5 of the act of 1906, which repealed section 43 of the original charter, and then tell this hon. House whether he is still cf the same opinion?


George Halsey Perley: As I said when
speaking before on this subject, my idea is
that the best way to deal with the matter is to let the charter lapse, and have the government take it over under this clause.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Does my hon. friend
mean that the government can take the charter over after it has lapsed?


George Halsey Perley: That is merely
a matter of verbiage. What I mean to say is, the government should take it over under the powers contained in the section to which he has referred. But that has nothing to do with the point I am trying to make with regard to section 1 of this bill. As I read section 1, it is altogether possible for the company to develop one power on the Ottawa river in the way I shall set forth, without proceeding any further. If hon. gentlemen will listen to me before shaking their heads they will agree with what I am going to say. In considering this point I will not refer to Carillon at all, because that raises the question of rival interests. Let us suppose that this bill should become law and that the charter were renewed under the terms of section 1. Could not the Georgian Bay Canal Company go to Deux Rivieres, 150 miles from Ottawa, and there build a canal and lock, spending $50,000, as they are obliged to do under this section, or even more, which would be in no way connected with the rest of the canal or works? Could not the company then build a dam to develop waterpower, and not to be used for canal purposes'? Would it not be possible for them to develop the water-power at that particular point, having built a canal in that section in order to carry out the specific terms of section 1, and thereafter sell the electricity thus produced, without doing anything further?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Would not the committee stage be the appropriate place to settle that question?


George Halsey Perley: Before I conclude I shall have a few words to say about the committee stage of these proceedings. Let me in the meantime develop the point I have in mind regarding the powers conferred by section 1. I am not a lawyer, and I am not affirming that what I have suggested can be done. I am, however, asking this question: Is it not possible under the terms of section 1 for the company, if they see fit, to do as I have outlined? Could they not, by building the canal and lock at that particular point and so complying with the terms of this section, sell all the power thereby developed without completing any of the rest of the waterway? And could they not do that at other points on the Ottawa river?
ids
Georgian Bay Canal Company

If they did, what remedy would there be? All that this parliament could do would be to declare the powers of the company null and void as respects so much of the canals and works as then remained uncompleted. But parliament could not take away the works already built. Thiis section provides that they shall complete and put into operation the whole of the works before the first of May, 1936. But suppose that when that time came nothing had been done except the construction at Deux Rivieres, where by building a high dam and putting the water back twenty miles or so they could develop a large horse-power: what remedy would the country have in that case? None. And the same argument would apply to other rapids and waterfalls on the Ottawa river.
It seems to me that this is a question worthy of the most serious consideration by members of this House. My view of the matter is confirmed by the following quotation from a letter which has been tabled and which is already in Hansard. The letter bears date January 17, 1925, written by the Deputy Minister cf Justice to the Deputy Minister of Public Works in reference to the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian bay canal, and the last sentence reads:
In any event it seems to me that approval should be withheld unless the work proposed to be constructed will afford traffic and navigation facilities between points which can reasonably be regarded as terminal points of a canal.
That is the opinion of Mr. W. Stuart Edwards, the very capable Deputy Minister of Justice. In other words, he considers that no bill should be passed which would enable the company to develop one or two powers on the Ottawa river without proceeding to the construction of the canal itself.
I am more and more impressed, as I have listened to this debate, with the view that this is a question which should be settled by the two provinces concerned and the Dominion, the parties sitting around a table and coming to a satisfactory conclusion. This is a public matter of the gravest importance, having regard to the respective rights of the provinces and of the Dominion. I know there is considerable difference of opinion about it, and I have no doubt the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), who will follow me, will differ from some of the other lawyers in the House. He will agree .with me, however, that the provinces have some rights on the Ottawa river, just as I am prepared to agree with him that the Dominion also has rights. I do not think these rights are well defined; at least, that is my opinion speaking as a layman. It seems to me that the

only way in which the interest of the people can be safeguarded-because, after all, we are all for the people, whether we be members of a provincial legislature or of the House of Commons-is for the provinces and the Dominion to get together and come to some arrangement regarding the development and the division of water-power on this great river.
Before I sit down I want to say a word in regard to the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie). When I ventured to oppose the second reading of the bill I had no idea that the newspapers and the public generally would be so keenly interested in the question. I declared then that I was not trying to prevent the bill from going to the committee; I merely wanted to have members of this House as well as the public fully informed regarding the facts. I wanted the members here, before the bill was considered in committee, to be fully seized with the gravity of the situation, more especially in view of the fact that water-power has become an asset of such vital importance to everyone in this country. As I said before, I look forward to the time when our children, or at any rate our grandchildren, will have houses heated with white coal. And that being so it is my opinion that this asset should be retained as far as possible by the people. I think I made it abundantly clear then that I was against the renewal of the charter of the Georgian Bay Canal Company, and as the discussion has proceeded in this House it has become evident that there is a strong feeling in the country that the principle involved in the bill should not be embodied in a private measure. It is a public question which should be dealt with in public legislation. That being the case, and public interest having been aroused as it has been, Rethink the leader of the opposition was quite justified in moving his amendment to the effect that this matter being of a public nature should be dealt with in a public and not in a private bill. Under the circumstances I shall be very glad to support the amendment


Ernest Lapointe: I do mot rise for the purpose of
either supporting or condemning the merits of the proposed bill, nor do I intend to discuss its expediency. Nor shall I go into the advisability of leasing to private companies the rights of developing power on the Ottawa river, whoever the directors of those companies may be. I shall not even discuss the policy of public ownership, although I may say that while I am not vociferous or fanatical in support of that policy, I have had

Georgian Bay Canal Company
occasion in the past to defend it against some gentlemen who are most violently opposed to the present bill. My purpose in rising is rather to perform what I deem to be my duty.
In the course of this debate, and outside of parliament, voices have been heard pleading and arguing for the rights of the provinces with regard to water-powers in navigable rivers, but so far no voice has been heard asserting the rights of the Dominion government. Without hestitation I have come to the conclusion that it is my duty as a member of the government and as Attorney General for this Dominion to defend the rights of the Dominion government in that respect; I do so the more easily because two years ago, when I occupied my present position, I had occasion to give my opinion on that very subject long before the renewal of this charter was before this House for discussion. In 1925 the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) referred to me a letter which he had received from the premier of the province of Ontario, and asked me what I thought were the respective rights of the federal government and of the provinces with regard to such water-powers. I wrote a letter under date of June 1, 1925, which I desire to now read to the House:
My dear Prime Minister,
Referring to your letter of the 17th ultimo, re. development of additional power at Carillon rapids on the Ottawa river, I may say that ever since the year 1894 the improvement of navigation between Montreal, Ottawa and the Georgian hay has been given earnest consideration by successive administrations, and has formed the subject of parliamentary legislation authorizing the construction of the necessary works. For many reasons, which need not be detailed here, the erection of such works has been postponed from time to time, with the result that no major iniprovement has been made in the navigation-of the Ottawa River. Leases have, however, been already granted covering navigation works at Carillon, one of which was dated the 31st March, 1911, and the other the 1st December, 1921.
With regard to Mr. Ferguson's suggestion that the action of this government should be made dependent upon the consent of the prov-vince of Ontario, my understanding is that any power which may be developed at Carillon will result from the erection of works for the improvement of navigation by or under the authority of the government under the powers conferred upon the Dominion by the British North America Act. Therefore, in so far as any questions regarding the improvement of navigation are concerned, the matter appears to be one in which the Dominion must proceed upon its own responsibility. It may be, however, that in the carrying out of these powers, or in the construction of the proposed works some interest of the province may be affected, and I think therefore that Mr. Ferguson should be informed that this government would welcome any representations which his government
may desire to make upon the subject. So far as I am aware, any interest which the province may have in the matter is of a limited character, depending possibly upon the ownership of lands in the bed of the river or within the area to be flooded. Any interference by the Dominion with such right or interest would form the basis of compensation which might be agreed upon by the governments concerned, but which, in any event, could be determined by adjudication.
T suggest that Mr. Ferguson be informed that so far as the improvement of navigation and the incidental development and disposal of power is concerned, this government is desirous of serving the best interests of Canada, and would be glad to receive any representations or suggestions which the provincial governments may desire to make as to the advisability or otherwise of the proposed scheme, but that this government is unable to recognize any right on the part of the province to control the Dominion in the exercise of its constitutional powers.
Yours faithfully,
Ebnest Lapointe.
This opinion was sent to the Prime Minister after consultation with the officers of the Department of Justice, and was based on opinions given on various occasions by them and by their predecessors in the department.
Reference has been made in the course of this debate to a judgment delivered by the Privy Council in November of the same year, six months after this opinion was given. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the judgment of the Privy Council not only says nothing contrary to the opinion then given, but is rather in conformity therewith. I have a copy of that judgment in my hand, delivered in a case between the harbour commissioners of Montreal, the city of Montreal and the government of the province of Quebec. The harbour commissioners of Montreal, acting by virtue of the powers given them by this parliament, had constructed quays and other works and had used for that purpose certain parts of shores of the St. Lawrence river which were declared to be the property of the government of the province of Quebec. Here is what was stated in this judgment:
Now there is no doubt that the power to control navigation and shipping conferred on the Dominion by section 91, is to be widely construed. As was pointed out by Lord Herschell in the judgment which he delivered on behalf of the board in the first of the three fisheries cases .... the terms on which these powers are given are so wide as to be capable of allowing the Dominion parliament to restrict, very seriously the exercise of proprietary rights in a fashion which, to a great extent, depends on the discretion of that parliament. What was said in that case about the enactment of regulations and restrictions in matters relating to fisheries being excluded from the competence of the provincial legislatures applies not less to matters relating to navigation and shipping. But while this is so, it does not appear to their
1G20
Georgian Bay Canal Company

lordships that the right of the Dominion extends so as to authorize them to vest in a body like the commissioners an exclusive right to occupy property of the province without compensation

Those are the important words.
-and to erect upon it permanent works, such as quays, docks and railways. It may well be that when the interests of navigation require it

I call the attention of the House to these words.

the Dominion parliament has authority to authorize the compulsory acquisition of lands on the terms of paying compensation; and it is to be noticed that the acts of 1873 and 1894 contain provisions of that nature. Their Lordships do not desire to throw any doubt upon the validity of those provisions. But in the present case no attempt to apply them was made by the commissioners, who took possession of and occupied the foreshore and bed without following the procedure laid down by the Railway Act, and in Their Lordships' view the provisions of section 91 (TO) (of the British North America Act) standing alone did not justify their proceedings.
In the conclusion of that judgment they repeat again that in their view the harbour commissioners had no right to enter upon and take possession of the lands of the province without compensation.
Any impression that may have been created that the Dominion parliament have no power to authorize the erection of dams in navigable waters is certainly erroneous. The interest which any province can have in the erection of dams in navigable waters is such as it may possess by virtue of its proprietary rights in the bed or the solum, or a certain proprietary interest which it may have in the fisheries. The power to authorize the erection of a dam on any such works is, I claim, exclusively vested in the Dominion parliament; and the only limitation upon the power of the Dominion to expropriate provincial property for the purposes thereof is the limitation mentioned in the judgment of the Privy Council in the harbour commissioners' case, namely, that such power shall not be exercised without compensation. In that case the Privy Council did not decide that the Dominion could not authorize expropriation of provincial crown lands. On the contrary, they decided the opposite. They held in effect, that the particular statutes which authorized the harbour commissioners of Montreal in relation to these works were not effective to vest the provincial lands in question in the 'harbour commissioners unless compensation was paid for them.
Now whatever doubt there might have been as to the effect of that judgment has certainly been dispelled last year in another case which

went to the Privy Council, namely, the reference which was made concerning the application of the Nipissing Central railway to build their line across crown lands of the province of Quebec. An application was made to the governor in council by the Nipissing Central railway, which is really a subsidiary of the railway belonging to the government of the province of Ontario, to be authorized to build their line through the crown lands of the province of Quebec under section 188 of the Railway Act. The province of Quebec took the stand very strongly that this section 188 of the Railway Act was unconstitutional, and that the Dominion government had no right to authorize any Dominion railway to take over lands belonging to the crown in the right of any province of Canada. Reference of this question was made to the Supreme Court of Canada and then to the Privy Council, and the judgment of the Privy Council was along the lines of the judgment which I have alluded to in the case of the harbour commissioners of Montreal. Their Lordships decided that section 188 was perfectly within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada, and that the Dominion railway authorized by this parliament had the right to take over the lands belonging to the crown in the right of the province, provided they paid compensation for them.
The solum of a river bed is property differing in no essential characteristic from any other lands, so that apart from the question of compensation above referred to, the interest of the province is no greater than that of any private owner of the bed. Now the legislative power of the province to legislate with regard to provincial property is subject to the paramount right of the Dominion to legislate with regard to Dominion property. Section 91 of the British North America Act gives the power to the parliament of Canada to legislate with regard to: navigation and shipping; fisheries; canals; and works for the general advantage of Canada; and the Dominion has ample power to authorize such works as come within these and other provisions of the British North America Act even without the consent of the provinces.
So far as the situation at Carillon is concerned, any proprietary interest which either Ontario or Quebec may have cannot be very considerable, because by section 108 of the British North America Act the public works and property of each province enumerated in the third schedule to the act became the property of Canada. The third schedule enumerates, amongst other properties:
(1) Canals-[DOT]

Georgian Bay Canal Company
And I wish the House to remember these words.
(1) Canals with lands and water-power connected therewith.
(5) Rivers and lake improvements.
Those which were existing at the time of confederation were specially stated in the British North America Act as being transferred to the Dominion of Canada. Chapter 28 of the consolidated statutes of the province of Canada, 1859, section 10, provides that:
-the several public works and buildings enumerated in the schedule to this act marked A, and all materials and other things belonging thereto, or prepared and obtained for the use of the same, shall be and continue to be,- except such (if any) as have been lawfully transferred to any municipality, company or party,-vested in Her Majesty, and under the management of the said commissioner for the purposes of this act.
Schedule A contains, under the heading "Navigation, Canals and Slides,'' the following item:
All such portions of the Ottawa river from the city of Ottawa upwards as have been or shall be improved at the expense of the provinces, the ordnance canals below the city of Ottawa and the Rideau canal and works.
Under these provisions the canal or canals at Carillon were vested in the province-I mean by the act of 1859-and by virtue of the provisions of section 108, schedule three, of the British North America Act, became the property of the Dominion at confederation, together with any "river improvements" which may have existed at that time.
The question of what interest, if any, the province may have in any water-powers which may come into existence by the erection of works for the improvement of navigation beyond what is required to operate the works has not yet been judicially determined. But I wish to call attention to this fact: the province of Ontario initiated two actions against the Dominion in the Exchequer court in the year 1912, with a view to having the contentions of the province adjudicated upon so far as the Trent canal and Welland canal are concerned, but the province has never proceeded with the litigation nor taken any other step to have its claims passed upon by a judicial tribunal. When the question comes to be determined, I believe the court will have to take cognizance of the fact that the provincial title to the bed of the river is burdened by the public right of navigation, which considerably decreased its value; that upon payment to the province of compensation for its proprietary interest in the bed of the stream, such interest according to the judgment of the 32649-103
Privy Council in the Montreal harbour commissioners' case, will be extinguished. Furthermore it has been held that the ownership of the bed of a river does not carry with it any proprietary interest in the waters which flow over it. The surplus waters in question do not exist by nature but are brought into being by the Dominion in the exercise of its powers.
If we take into consideration all that I have already mentioned as to the proprietorship of the canals as well as the improvements on the river having been transferred under the British North America Act to the Dominion of Canada at considerable cost and, I think, a cost disproportionate to any revenue which may be derived from the use even of the power, it follows that until the matter is judically determined, the Dominion must regard the provincial interest in such water-powers as not being so considerable as some hon. gentlemen in the course of this debate have claimed.
The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) has alluded to the fact that in 1912, when the charter of the Georgian Bay Canal Company was renewed, a clause had been inserted for the purpose of meeting the demands of the province of Ontario. It was also inserted in 1913 when an amendment to the act was sought and given. It was also inserted in 1915, but it was omitted in 1918. Without being offensive to my good friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), may I remark that he was then a member of the government of Canada, and if it is a crime to-day to let a private bill giving a charter to the Georgian Bay Canal Company come before the House, surely it was not a particularly religious act or a manifestation of sanctity to do that in 1918, and more especially when there was omitted from that bill a clause which previously had been inserted to meet the demands of Ontario?


Hugh Guthrie: I may be wrong, but I think the minister is in error in saying that the clause was omitted from the bill. It was, but it was not repealed in the former bill, was it? It was continued. If the minister will make investigation he will find that that particular section is still in force because it was not repealed.


Ernest Lapointe: But why did my hon. friend and his friends at that time change the wording of the clause? In 1918 a clause was inserted saving the rights of the Dominion government but omitting those of the province, although the latter provision had been put into the former charter.



Georgian Bay Canal Company


Hugh Guthrie: That was done because the section in the former charter was still in existence. It was not repealed and it is in existence to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think it would have done any harm to repeat it in the bill of 1918.


Hugh Guthrie: It would not have done any good.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member for
West Calgary admitted that it was omitted in 1918. Of course I think he and I are agreed on this, that in 1918 many queer things were done by the government of the day. I am sorry I was unavoidably absent from the House on Friday night when the hon. member for West Calgary made a very interesting speech. I will comment only on this observation of his as reported on page 1576 of Hansard. He said:
What is my duty? My duty is, so far as my vote and voice are concerned, to see to it that this parliament gives no new life to an enterprise that we would not in this day create if we were called upon to do so, and that we leave the river Ottawa free, by permitting this charter to lapse and by refusing to renew the license to the private company, reserving the vested rights of the owners of the 250 horsepower development.
That is a repentance on the part of my hon. friend, because he was a member of the government that a few months ago renewed the lease.


Mr. BENNETT:: My hon. friend, I think, has misunderstood the situation. The lease to which I had reference was the lease that existed in 1911.


Ernest Lapointe: That is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the government had accepted the responsibility of cancelling the order in council made on the recommendation of the hon. member for West York (Sir Henry Drayton) and thereby assumed the responsibility until the first of May, I said: let it die on the first of May and do not extend it, and I say so now.


Ernest Lapointe: But if this government
had not cancelled that order in council, the lease would be in existence long after the first of May next.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the time within which the company would have to expend the money would expire before that.


Ernest Lapointe: My good friend ought
not to try to excuse himself. It is nice to have signs of repentance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: New occasions teach new duties.


Ernest Lapointe: This bill asks for the renewal of a charter granted by the parliament of Canada and renewed, if I am not mistaken, twelve or thirteen times. Its renewal is asked again. It may be that in view of failure of the company to carry out the works which it was authorized to build, in view of the fact that the development of electrical power and its use all over Canada have brought about a change in the situation, it may be that it would not be expedient to renew for the thirteenth or fourteenth time the charter of the company, but it is for the committee to decide whether to do so would be expedient or not.
So far as I am concerned, if one half-and I w'ish everybody to listen to me

of the statements which have been made during the course of this debate are true, I will oppose the bill when it comes to its final stages; but I want to give what is granted to everybody in a free country, a hearing to interested parties before a committee of this House. That is why I will vote for the second reading of this bill; but when the other stages come, I am from Missouri; I want to be shown.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my purpose
in rising is not to discuss either the merits or the demerits of this particular bill, but rather to draw the attention of the House to what appears to be a very material change in its procedure, and in this connection to the difference between public legislation and private legislation, and the function which parliament was intended to sejrve in reference thereto. Hon. members will, I think, agree that parliament was created primarily for the purpose of enacting measures in the interest of the public generally. Parliament was not created primarily for the purpose of dealing with private legislation. We have only to look at the rules adopted in relation to public and private measures to see how entirely different is the procedure in the two classes of measures.
I need not review the procedure in regard to public bills; it is known and understood by every hon. member in this House. I would, however, draw the attention of parliament to the fact that as respects private legislation there is a material difference. In dealing with private legislation, parliament acts partly in a legislative capacity, partly in a judicial capacity. Before a private bill can come before this House the parties who are interested are required to pay a fee in order to entitle them to have their petition even considered.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
They are obliged to advertise in the public press and in the Canada Gazette with reference to the measure which they intend to present to the House. Before a committee of the House, the parties opposed to them are permitted to appear and to be heard by counsel if so desired. In other words parliament's duty with respect to private legislation is to act partly as a legislative body and partly also as a judicial body. It is apparent that except for most exceptional purposes, the House of Commons collectively is not so constituted as to undertake work of a judicial character. For that reason arrangement is made in the procedure whereby private bills are referred to committees, constituted primarily for the purpose of considering from a judicial point of view whether or not the legislation is of a character which parliament should entertain and pass, and it is for that reason that, with respect to the second reading of private bills, it has never been understood that parliament is passing, excepting conditionally, upon the general principle which is involved in the legislation that is before the House. I think it is important that this should be clearly understood, because if we once permit a departure from the general rule which parliament through its many years of existence had adopted, we shall be establishing a precedent that may be fatal to the progress of legislation in this chamber.
It was on the 25th of February last that the present bill respecting the Georgian bay canal was first discussed in the House. From that day to this on practically every private members' day the time of parliament has been occupied with the discussion of this particular measure. Four full days of the time of parliament have been occupied in the discussion, and the one hour set apart for private legislation has been taken up on eight other different days. On about twelve or thirteen days for the period of time set apart for a consideration of private legislation the time of this House has been exclusively occupied in discussing matters relating to the Georgian bay canal. I contend that of itself that is a sufficient answer as to the propriety of the course which parliament has been taking. It was never intended under any rule of this House that private legislation should occupy such a large part of the time intended to be devoted to public matters by those who were sent to this House to represent the people in reference thereto. The authorities on private and public legislation are in accord in laying down the distinction between the importance to be attached to the second reading of a private bill and 'that to be attached 32649-103-i
to the second reading of a public measure; they make it quite clear that, unless the general principle of a private bill is contrary to the public interest, that bill ought to go to committee, there to be adjudicated on with reference to its expediency.
Now, the general principle of a bill does Dot mean the details of the measure. It does not mean the various matters incidental to the measure; it means simply what the words themselves purport to mean, namely, a broad principle applicable to legislation generally, and equally applicable in one part of the country or another. The general principle to be decided in reference to a private measure is, so to speak, the public morality of the particular measure, whether or not the measure is of a kind that parliament ought to entertain, having regard to its character in a broad way-not the particular application of the measure, not some special feature, not its expediency at a particular time or place, but the broad general principle. Let me illustrate: if a private bill were brought in to license a gambling house, parliament would say at once: "There is here a general principle which we cannot entertain", and the 'bill would be thrown to one side. But if a private bill is brought into the House to give authority to some person to construct an edifice, or a canal, or a work of any particular kind, the principle there is the principle of allowing the construction of the particular kind of device or structure referred to, whatever it may be. If a bill is brought into the House with regard to the licensing of power or the granting of power rights, the general principle there is mot whether rights should be granted to a particular company, not whether rights should be granted at a particular place, but the broad principle whether parliament ought to grant licenses for power, or give power rights at any time or place.
May I quote one or two authorities in support of what I have just said? First of all, I will refer to a statement by Mr. Francis Palgrave, made before a special committee of the British House of Commons as early as the 22nd June, 1832, because it helps to disclose how private legislation has found its way into the discussions of parliament:
The ancient rule as to petitioners for private legislation said Sir Francis Palgrave, was that "no person should come before parliament as a suitor, or trouble parliament if, on the face of his petition, he could have right at home. If there was any other mode of obtaining redress he was not to apply to parliament, but if from the insufficiency of the law or any other similar cause he couid not obtain redress, then the supreme court of parliament was to give

Georgian Bay Canal Company
him a speedy and effectual remedy. This course continued until the time of Richard II, when courts of equity were gradually established. The remedial jurisdiction of parliament wholly ceased and was only revived under James I. Private acts of parliament have arisen out of the ancient petition for redress and were formerly called the "Privilegium" because parliament in passing them was considered as granting a privilege. For this reason the committees of the House investigate the facts in each case and report. The House, in reading a private bill for the second time, decides that the matter involved is one which may be looked into by the committee. It is only in case that an exceptional principle is enunciated that the second reading is refused."
I would ask hon. members to note these words by a well-recognized authority on both private and public legislation:
The House in reading a private bill for the second time, decides that the matter involved is one which may be looked into by the committee. It is only in case that an exceptional principle 's enunciated that the second reading is refused.	i'	1


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Would my hon. friend explain his position: Is this not an exceptional case? That is the question which is in the minds of many hon. members of this House.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My answer to my hon. friend is that this is the thirteenth time that the bill to grant a charter to the Georgian Bay Canal Company has come before the House and that it has been favourably passed upon on all previous occasions. How can my hon. friend say that an exceptional principle is being enunciated?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I heard the Minister of
Railways (Mr. Dunning) the other night distinctly state to the House that the gist of this measure was not a canal project, but a project for the development of power, and it made a great impression upon my mind.
Mr.MACKENZIE KING: I do not think the hon. Minister of Railways made that statement at all, with all due respect to my hon. friend. I think he said the bone of contention was power rights as between private interests arising out of the canal project. That is a matter that can well be elucidated in committee of the House. That is why, if referred to the committee, the bill would serve to bring out possibly not only the interests that are asking for this particular measure, but the interests that are opposing it, and which it is very much in the public interest to have known.
I pause here to indicate to the House the different views taken by some hon. members in reference to the principle which is being considered. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) devoted I think,
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
more time than any other hon. member to discussing the question of principle, and in the course of his speech he enunciated four different principles as those underlying this particular measure. Surely my hon. friend will admit that a committee of the House in deciding the general principle of the bill must lay down one general principle, not four. The first principle laid down by my hon. friend will be found in Hansard at page 1454. There he is reported as follows:
My friend has asked me wliat is the principle of the bill. Its principle is determined from reading the bill itself. The bill divides itself into two parts: (a) canal, (b) power.
A little further down, concluding the paragraph, my hon. friend says:
The construction and operation of power plants with authority to sell power to consumers. That is the principle of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With all that has gone before it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the first statement, made on the night of March 22 last. Speaking last Friday, my hon. friend is reported at page 1571 of Hansard as having said:
If lion, gentlemen will look through the bill they will find that the principle of this proposed legisation is:	To enable this company, the
Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, hereinafter called "the company" to commence the construction of its canals or any of them.
That is principle number two, emphatically so stated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister has no right to misstate the matter. I was then repeating what I had already said in the first instance, and I said in terms that the purpose of the bill, was, first, canal and, second, power. That is a restatement.
Mr, MACKENZIE KING: The last thing I wish to do is to misrepresent my hon. friend in any way. He says the last part is a restatement of the first. I would say, rather, that it is supplementary, and I think he will agree that in so saying I am doing him justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me take the third principle he enunciated. At page 1571 of Hansard there appears the following, which probably is also a supplementary principle :
Therefore the powers of this company are divided into two branches: (a) Its canal undertaking: (b) its power undertaking; and the principle of the measure is

What? Not to construct canals, not to develop power, but-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
to renew the life of, revivify and resuscitate a company whose life will expire on May 1 next.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then at page 1665 of Hansard we have the fourth statement :
The right of this company to a renewal of this charter. That is the principle of this measure.
May I draw the attention of the House to those four statements of general principle- first, to construct and operate power plants, second, to enable a company to commence the construction of its canal, third, to renew the life of, revivify and resuscitate a company whose life will expire, and, lastly, the right of a company to a renewal of its charter. If any one of these is to be considered as a general principle underlying a bill-using the word "principle" in its broad sense, forgetting the reference to any particular question of expediency in regard to this particular measure- I say on any of those principles this House would be justified in letting a bill go to a special committee.
What is wrong in principle, in this House agreeing to the construction and operation of power plants? Is there anything wrong in the general principle? That is one statement of the general principle of this bill. It may not be expedient, but that is for the committee to decide. There may be allegations of fact that cannot be supported in the committee; but the broad question of principle is simply whether this House should allow as a proper bill to be considered by a committee, a bill relating to the construction and operation of power plants. Take the second principle enunciated by my hon. friend-to enable the company to commence the construction of a canal. Since when has it become wrong in principle for this parliament to permit the construction of a canal? That is the only principle laid down there. It has to be a principle which applies from one end of this Dominion to the other. You cannot refuse on ground of principle the construction of a canal on the Georgian bay or on the Ottawa river, and not at the same time thereby establish a precedent to govern at some future date and other place say this construction of a canal in the maritime provinces or in British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask the right hon. gentleman without interrupting-is there upon the statute books any act incorporating a canal company and empowering it to charge tolls?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is aside
from the question altogether.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the whole question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whether it is proper that a particular canal company should charge tolls is a matter for a committee to inquire into.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I may ask the Prime Minister a question: Is there not involved the principle whether this country is prepared to allow a private enterprise to construct a canal through national waters?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whether a
private company should have the right to construct a canal anywhere is a perfectly reasonable question. It involves no improper principle.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not that the
very point at issue here that we have to decide on the second reading?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. The point I am trying to make clear to my hon. friend is this: that the expediency of a particular project is part of the judicial work which parliament carries on through its committee. All this House is asked to pass on in the way of principle in referring this bill to a committee is, as I read the measure, the principle of the construction of a canal. Some gentlemen say it is a question of power, others say the renewal of the charter is involved. These are broad principles, and all parliament does is to refer the matter for further consideration by a committee before any legislation is adopted. Let me say to my hon. friend that parliament has already referred this very matter twelve times with respect to this particular measure. So we are not laying down any new principle at the present time.
May I read one or two other authorities? Sir Courtney Ilbert, late Clerk of the British House of Commons, states:	[DOT]
The proceedings on private bills resemble more closely private litigation between parties interested than a discussion on questions of public policy. The procedure followed for their introduction is different from that provided in the rules for public measures.
The Canadian House of Commons has adopted forty-one special rules respecting private legislation. A petition has to 'be presented and accepted. Applicants have to advertise in the local newspapers and' in the Canada Gazette. A deposit has to be made before the House considers the bill, and parliamentary agents are authorized to appear before the committee on behalf of the interested parties. The object of a private bill is to induce parliament to make an exception from the general law for something which cannot be obtained by means of the general law.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Dodd and Wilberforce on Private Bill Procedure at page 20 has the following:
The House does not profess to decide upon the second reading as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations of fact upon which a proposed bill is based, and in conceding a second reading to a private bill the House is regarded as merely giving its sanction to its general principle on the hypothesis that the committee to which it is afterwards referred finds those allegations proved. It is usual, therefore, to allow a second reading, except where the bill enunciates some principle which the House is not prepared to affirm.
If we take the references made by hon. gentlemen opposite as to what the principle of this bill is, up to the present moment no principle has been cited which, as a general principle, this House should not be prepared to recognize one on which a private bill might be considered by a committee.
Let me give a further citation which has an immediate bearing on this bill inasmuch as it refers to a parallel case in the British House of Commons. The Hon. Mr. Lowther, for many years Speaker of the British House, had been before his elevation to that office chairman of committees of the House of Commons, and in that capacity gave more attention to matters of procedure in the House than possibly any other member. As chairman of the committee of ways and means, Mr. Lowther, speaking on February 25, 1896 said:
The rule which the House had generally followed, and he thought very wisely, had been to allow the second reading of private bills to go through unless any strikingly new principle happened to be enunciated therein, and in such cases the House must pause before it accepted the principle. Certain objections had been taken to the bill by the hon. member who raised the opposition to it, but he thought they were all committee objections, and that the proper place to deal with them would be in committee, not upon the second reading. No new principle being promulgated, the House would do well to follow the rule it had invariably followed in former parliaments-namely, to give the bill a second reading, and send it upstairs, in order that it might be dealt with there in the usual manner.
That is taken from the Parliamentary Debates, fourth series, volume 2 37, 1896.


John Evans: May I ask the Prime Minister this question here and now? I gather that he admits that the construction of a national waterway under private ownership and control is a perfectly legitimate matter for this House to consider. Is that right?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are
times and seasons for all things, and on fourteen occasions, I think, this House has done the very thing which my hon. friend 
suggests is at this moment an improper course for us to take. And I believe the hon. gentleman was a member of the House on some of those occasions.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Why repeat it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a question of expediency for the committee to consider. I cannot say what view the committee will take of the measure, but I am sure that all representations that can be made will be submitted to the committee. Furthermore, every member of the committee is a member of this House. In that regard let me make it clear what particular committee will be charged with the consideration of this bill. The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) indicated the other evening that the bill would go to the private bills committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I corrected that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not
the intention. Let me read rule 101 relating to bills and petitions:
Every private bill, when read a second time, is referred to one of the standing committees as follows: bills relating to banks, insurance, trade and commerce, to the committee on Banking and Commerce; bills relating to railways, canals, telegraphs, canal and railway bridges, to the committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines; the bills not coming under these classes to the committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, and all petitions for or against the bills are considered as referred to such committee.
Inasmuch therefore as this bill has reference to canals it will go to the committee on railways and canals.
In support of my contention that the bill is one concerned with canals, may I, Mr. Speaker, quote your own statement in taking exoeiption to an amendment which was moved by an hon. member on the night of March 21. On that occasion Your Honour made the following assertion:
The purpose of the bill apparently is for the construction of a canal.
And elsewhere:
As a matter of fact the bill is simply for the extension of time for the construction of a canal.
May I say, speaking for myself, that that is the only general principle which I think it is possible properly to apply to this bill: it is a bill relating to the construction of a canal, and as such it should be referred to the committee on railways and canals for adjudication. It will then be for the committee on railways and canals to say whether it is such in fact and whether it is expedient for parlia-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
ment at this particular time to entertain the measure in the form in which it has been sent to them.
Before I conclude I should like to quote the following reference which has been submitted by my hon. friend opposite from his point of view. I desire to quote it in support of my contention. I refer to what Bourinot has to say at page 599, of the fourth edition, in reference to the second reading of private bills:
The second reading corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it, the House affirms the general principle, or expediency of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public, and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the House will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
I desire to reiterate what I said at the outset. Should the amendment of my hon. friend opposite carry and this bill not be permitted to go to the committee, we shall have established with respect to private bills a new precedent which may become an instrument not only for consuming the time of parliament but for preventing the House from having the opportunity which it should have of dealing with public legislation. More than that, it may become a very powerful instrument for preventing other parties, who have private legislation to be considered by parliament, from ever obtaining a chance for that legislation to be dealt with. We are now, I hope, within measurable distance of the conclusion of the session, and if this debate continues much longer, as it easily can if hon. members are determined to obstruct private legislation, all other persons having private bills to be considered at this session will lose their opportunity entirely. Only by common consent of both sides of the House have a number of private measures gone to the committee. But for the Speaker having taken a generous view of the wishes of the House, and by my hon. friend opposite and myself having agreed at each stage to allow certain measures, which stood on the order paper below' the Georgian bay canal bill, to go to committee, practically the whole of the private legislation of this session would have been held up until the present moment. It
must be apparent that once the precedent is established which it is sought now to create, this parliament is opening the door to a course of procedure which in the future may prove perilous. If persons who are interested in defeating a private measure find a successful method to be that of defeating it on the second reading of the bill in this House and before it goes to a committee, we may expect interests, adverse to other private legislation, to adopt similar methods. It is quite possible that we may find parties interested in defeating private legislation resorting to this method as a means of preventing other legislation from ever being considered by parliament. This method of obstructing the second reading of private bills may be resorted to as a means of preventing not only the particular measure being discussed but any measure subsequently introduced from ever receiving from parliament the consideration it should.
In this particular matter there is involved a wider principle, namely, whether we shall depart from the time-honoured custom of permitting private bills to receive their second reading and to be referred to a committee, conditionally, the understanding being that the committee as a judicial body shall determine whether or not it is expedient, in the light of all the facts and circumstances, for such bills to be favourably reported upon. The question now to be decided is whether we shall recognize and continue that custom, or whether we shall begin a new course of procedure that may affect the whole trend and progress of public business in this House. Let me point out that when thus bill goes to the committee it will be not only the right but that it is the duty of every member freely to exercise his judgment.
There is no commitment of any kind on tne part of the government in resipect to this measure. The government has no interest whatever in this measure apart from having it dealt with as other private bills are dealt with; with as other private bills are dealt with; the government has never had any interest, directly or indirectly, other than to see that all parties who appear here with respect to private legislation are treated alike. Should the bill come back from committee hon. members of this House will be as free as possible to vote as they please with respect to the measure. All I am asking at present, as one who has some responsibility for procedure in this House, is that hon. members consider this vote as one
162S

Georgian Bay Canal Company
having reference primarily to the procedure of this parliament in regard to private legislation generally.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I desire to take only a few
moments of the time of the House. I think everyone agrees entirely with the authorities cited by the Prime Minister with respect to private bills, and I think the House should deprecate any effort to talk out a bill which is really a private bill, to prevent it from passing simply by an exercise Of the vocal powers of the members on every hour and every day when private bills may be discussed. The House can have only one opinion in that regard. But the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in the carefully prepared statement which he made to the House to-night, disclosed that there are very grave issues of public policy involved in the subject matter of this discussion.
I do not pretend to give an opinion on the constitutional questions involved. But I have always been under the impression that the provisions of the act of confederation and the schedules thereto, to which the minister made allusion, created prirna facie very strong ground for the argument that the Dominion parliament, having legislative jurisdiction over certain navigable waters, and having legislative jurisdiction with regard to canals at the time of confederation, took over and vested in the crown in the right of the Dominion government not only the canals then in existence but the water-powers then being developed supplementary or ancillary to the construction and operation of these canals, and became vested with the right to utilize these water-powers for hydro-electric purposes; and that when thereafter parliament had undertaken to legislate in regard to canals, and when the government had undertaken to construct Canals, the use of the waters and all rights in and to the hydro-electric power developed as ancillary to the construction of those canals, vested in the Dominion government. There are strong grounds for that contention, and, in view of other matters which will come btfore parliament in the next few years, it is advisable that that issue should Speedily be decided by the highest courts of the country, in order that we may know, in connection with the development not only of the canals on the Ottawa river but the canals on other great rivers whether, having constructed the canals, the crown in the right of the federal government has the property title and interest in and to the hydro electric power thereby developed.

I am disposed to believe that the crown in the right of the Dominion government has that title, and if so we may settle this question of the title to hydro-electric power developed by government canals on navigable streams in a way which will not be in accord with the contentions of the provincial governments of Ontario and Quebec. That being so, and that question of title having been raised in relation to this bill, both by the legislature and government of Ontario and the legislature and government of Quebec, it is clearly apparent that this .bill involves questions of grave public policy. I would be the last .to attempt to prevent in any direct or indirect way any private bill from going before ithe standing committee which has power to investigate its merits and hear the evidence of the parties concerned; but, in respect of this bill, the moment the issue arose that it involved grave questions of public policy, questions concerning which the legislatures and governments of Ontario and Quebec had taken a strong stand, then it became the duty of this government to assume full responsibility in the matter and either to request the promoters of this bill to withdraw it for the time being or, with full knowledge of the issues involved, for the Prime Minister, as the leader of the House, from his place in the House to rise and take full responsibility for the measure, and ask that it be placed upon the public orders as a government measure. In view of the issues which are involved it would be wrong for this House any longer to regard this as purely a private bill involving nothing more than is involved in the ordinary private bill coming before the House. That is my opinion about it.
The Prime Minister has stated that on some twelve or thirteen occasions similar bills have been before the House and have passed the second reading and been sent to committee. All I can say in that regard is that the issues which are raised to-day were not raised on any of those occasions, and, if these issues had been raised by the governments of the two adjoining provinces on any previous occasion, it would then have become apparent that grave matters of public policy were involved, and, in fulfilling its due .responsibility of guarding the public estate which is vested in the crown in the right of the Dominion government, the government would not have-allowed the bill to go before the committee-on private bills. As soon as a private bill clearly takes on the aspect of a public bill, just so soon should all the rules with regard to -public bills apply, and just so soon should

Georgian Bay Canal Company
the government assume the responsibility of dealing with it as a public bill. That is my view of the question.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should apologize to the House for rising after the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had apparently closed the debate. I may also say that I do not propose to answer the more or less constitutional argument advanced by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). This bill being a private measure, I should like to state very clearly at the outset that I am speaking not as a member of the government but rather as the representative of a constituency which takes a very keen interest in the principle of public ownership. If I may be pardoned for making the reference, I might say that the constituency of North Waterloo, which I have the honour to represent, is the birthplace of the great hydro electric enterprise in the province of Ontario. The men who initiated that enterprise-which I think is the outstanding successful example of a great public utility-the men who initiated that enterprise in a practical way were men from the constituency of North Waterloo, and it was in the city of Kitchener, in that constituency, that the power from Niagara was officially inaugurated. And so Kitchener was a leader in the initiation and use of Niagara power in the province of Ontario The city of Kitchener has been very successful along other lines in the conduct of public utilities under public ownership; and it was because of that, and for other reasons, that a good many years ago I became convinced that the great majority of public services upon which depend the convenience and the prosperity of the people in general ought to be owned and controlled by the people themselves. In that I also include the development of some of our natural resources such as, for example, the development ol water-powers on our great rivers.
The bill under discussion touches that principle at two points; that of the construction of the canal, and the development of the water-powers following upon the construction of the canal. So far as I am concerned I would oppose the bill itself on both counts. If it is indeed feasible, which I very much doubt-I doubt whether the Georgian bay canal can be constructed-I would say that when the time comes when it ought to be constructed it should be built by the people of Canada themselves. But the matter of power, I think, is at the moment of more importance than the canal; and I would regard it as almost unthinkable in these days, with
the advancement that has been made in the development of water-powers, in the province of Ontario at least, that the control and ownership of such powers should be placed in private hands. I also realize the difficulty with regard to the matter of public ownership with regard to the powers on the Ottawa river. As it happens, our friends in the province of Quebec-and I have no fault to find with them at all-are not so favorable to the principle of public ownership as we are in the province of Ontario, but I would make this suggestion:	that since the Dominion undoubtedly has rights on the Ottawa, and as both provinces undoubtedly have rights on that river, it is advisable, and I think feasible, that a conference should be held between the three governments for the purpose of arriving at a satisfactory settlement of the various rights and to decide upon an equitable arrangement with regard to the powers on that river. You might have several solutions, and I want to advance one which has not yet been mentioned in this House: it might conceivably be decided at such a conference that it would be in the public interest that some private company should be given the development of these power rights. I do not think that would follow; I hope it would not. It might be decided between the provinces that they could get together and in a publicly-owned enterprise develop the powers on the Ottawa river. And then there is this further suggestion I should like to make, although it may be regarded as impracticable. The Dominion government has undoubted navigation rights on the Ottawa river, and I have been informed that it would be a not very expensive undertaking to canalize the Ottawa river from Carillon down to the St. Lawrence-that it would cost very little. In connection with that development several hundred thousand horse-power could be secured, and it might be regarded as a very good solution of the whole problem if the Dominion government developed the power, and then sold it to the Ontario hydro commission and to those in the province of Quebec who might desire to purchase.


Ernest Lapointe: I am willing.


William Daum Euler: While I think there is no misapprehension in the House as to the meaning of the motion upon which we are to vote to-night, I think there is some misapprehension throughout the country because of propaganda-may I call it?-in the press in one way and another. I would not say it was intentional propaganda, but I believe that throughout the country, and largely in the province of Ontario, there is an impression

Georgian Bay Canal Company
that the vote at this particular moment decides whether the powers on the Ottawa river shall be given to private interests or whether they shall not. Now that is a misapprehension. AfteT all, what we are voting on tonight is whether this bill shall go to a committee or whether it shall be killed here. I believe there are a good many hon. members, especially on this side, who are quite willing, and perhaps even anxious, that the bill should go to a committee, and yet when it comes to the point of deciding whether the bill shall pass or not will be absolutely opposed to it. But I am inclined to think that opinion is not entirely unanimous on the other side with regard to that point. I think I am correct as to that because I remember veiy well on the occasion when the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) spoke on the original motion he was not opposed to sending it to committee. Here are his exact words:
I shall take this opportunity again to make plain my position as I am anxious not to be misunderstood in the matter. It is not my intention to prevent the bill from being referred to and considered by the committee on railways.
So that there must have been some change of opinion on the part of my hon. friend.


David Spence: Would the minister tell us how he intends to vote himself?


William Daum Euler: I will tell my hon. friend in a few minutes. There are those who think that the ordinary and regular course with respect to private bills should be followed in this case, and that it ought to go to committee. There are others, like my hon. friend from West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) who believe an important principle of public policy is involved and therefore that the bill should be dealt with on the second reading. I am not quarreling with either of these opinions; I think there is room for argument in both cases. I do believe this though: that the important thing to remember is-whether the bill shall carry or not. The motion to-night does not decide that. It merely decides whether it goes to committee or not. There are those of us, and I am almost one of them, who think that we should not consider at any length the principle of granting power rights on the Ottawa to a private concern. If some hon. members believe that this bill should be fought at every turn, I would suggest it would have been just as appropriate, instead of fighting it on the second reading, to have fought it on the first reading, and to have had nothing to do with the proposal whatever. I am not particularly bound to precedent; perhaps less so than any other hon. member here. I think we bow entirely too
fMr. Euler.]
much to precedent. We have first, second and third reading of a bill, and of a resolution, and the same thing takes place in the Senate. I think our committee on rules which made suggestions as to the form of those rules might very well have gone a little further and cut out some of the red tape with which we are burdened in the House now.
In conclusion I wish to say this, and I say it without offence to anybody: I do not for one moment imagine that the constitution will be shattered into fragments if this bill does not go to committee. Neither do I believe that if it does go to committee, anybody's conscience, so far as public ownership is concerned, will be violated in any particular.


James Dew Chaplin: Our status will not be
changed?


William Daum Euler: Not at all. It is to me merely a matter of method, as to where this bill shall be done to death; whether it shall be killed in the House on the vote which will follow, or whether it shall meet exactly the same fate in committee, because I am convinced that the committee, as I think it ought to do, will kill the bill. The province of Ontario

and perhaps I can speak for that province more than for any other part of Canada-is almost unanimous against this bill. I have received telegrams and letters from at least fifty or sixty municipalities all asking that this bill be not allowed to pass, but I have not received one from a single municipality asking that this bill should not go to committee. *


James Dew Chaplin: The minister may be able to explain the matter to them.


William Daum Euler: I will. I shall have no difficulty about that. I am sure that nothing which might be adduced before that committee could change my opinion as to the advisability of not allowing this charter to be renewed again. I am free to say that I am opposed to the bill in its entirety. I have no particular objection to its going to committee; but I do say this-and none other has said it -that if this bill should by any chance survive, if it does go to committee, when it returns to this House for third reading I shall assuredly vote against it and oppose it with all the power I may possess.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you, Sir, as well as many other members of the House, must be much impressed with the spectacle which we have witnessed to-night in the belated statement of the position of the government in regard to this bill. The first minister to speak, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)

Georgian Bay Canal Company
reviewed at considerable length the constitutional feature of the bill. But I will draw to the attention of the House the fact that his whole argument was based upon the premise that we were discussing the question of the right of the Dominion government to deal with matters pertaining to navigable waters. The whole of his citations, his own learned judgment or statement of his opinion, the statements from the Privy Council, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Privy Council again, all referred to matters having to do with navigable waters. No person on this side of the House or, indeed, in the House, has argued that this parliament has not the absolute right to deal with measures pertaining to navigable waters. What those on this side who have taken the constitutional question in hand argue is that this bill is as a matter of fact a deceitful measure. It is given to this House as a measure for the construction of a canal, when every hon. member knows-and all who have spoken except the hon. member fathering the bill acknowledge it-that it is in fact a measure for the promotion of waterpower development, an altogether different proposition. None of the citations of the Minister of Justice dealt with that feature of the case.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who followed, spent practically all his time in an effort to establish the principle of sending this bill to a committee of the House and to impress upon the House and the country that it was the duty of the House to send the bill to a committee; that the House had no real choice in the matter; that if we did not do that we would violate some cherished principle of constitutional and popular government. As a matter of fact all the rules pertaining to this subject, every citation he made, as well as the practice of this House and of the British House, are to the effect that the Second reading is the occasion upon which, if we have an objection to the principle of a bill, that objection should be registered.
Not only is that the case, but according to our rules governing private bills, if this bill goes to the select committee, that committee have no power to alter the principle of the bill. That committee cannot vary the nature of the bill from what was sent to them by this House. With the consent of the promoters of the bill they may vary it to some extent; but if they do so, they must report the variations to the House. Furthermore, that committee are not permitted to follow the suggestion made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Euler) namely to kill the bill. By the rules of the House they are specifically precluded from delaying or in any other
way killing the bill. They must report the bill to the House. It is infinitely more of an invasion of the rights of the citizens of Canada, which rights were referred to so touchingly by the Prime Minister, to refuse to report the bill to the House than to refuse to send the bill to committee. What I want to impress upon the minds of every hon. member who has been arguing on this point is that the committee have no right to vary the principle of the bill; they have no right to curtail the powers contained in the bill, and they must report the bill to the House. They have no right by underhand methods to assassinate the bill, as has been suggested by the Minister of Customs.


William Daum Euler: Have they not the right to
report to the House unfavourably on the bill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They may report unfavourably.


William Daum Euler: Does that not kill the bill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will admit that they
may report to the House that in the opinion of the committee the preamble should not carry, but that is not the suggestion that has been made. The suggestion that has been made is that the bill will go to the committee; that there it will be shorn of its objectionable features, and that this and that protection will be added to it. I submit that cannot be done.
I come now to my hon. friend the Minister of Customs. We appreciate the delicacy of his position.


James Dew Chaplin: And that of others.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes. We know perfectly
well the Minister of Customs is absolutely opposed to the bill. We knew that before he said so. We know perfectly well that his judgment-and it is a judgment of a very sound character-is wholly against the principle of the bill, and this is the time when he ought to vote against that principle. I will venture to say this to the minister:	If
he had taken that stand when the government were talking this matter over and had told his colleagues that he as a member of the government would oppose the bill as his conscience and judgment dictated, the government would not be standing behind the bill to-night. They would not dare to do so because, being divided on the question, they could not face this House. To escape the dilemma the Minister of Customs says that he will vote for the second reading, but with the distinct understanding that this bill will go to a committee where it is to be given an underhand death, smothered to death,

Georgian Bay Canal Company
strangled in the dark somehow. That is not, I submit, consistent with my hon. friend's usual courage. No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and those who think like him ought to vote against this measure on the second reading, when the principle of the bill is under consideration and being decided.
In regard to the bill itself, I have already stated that the reason I object to it is that, on the face of it, it is a piece of sham and deceit. There is not a member of this House, with the exception of my hon. friend who promoted or who is fathering 'the bill in the House-and to him I will come in a moment- who has asserted that this bill is for the purpose of constructing a canal. Every hon. member who has spoken-and I have followed the debate with care-has emphasized the power feature of this bill. Furthermore, it is known to everyone in the House that this canal would never be built by Sir Clifford Sifton and his associates if they were shorn of the rights to take the power incidental to such development. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is a power bill and not a canal bill.
In the second place, I make the point that if the canal were to be constructed, assuming that they would construct the canal, it is calculated and intended that any cost of that construction shall be borne by moneys raised on the power feature of the bill. What does that mean? It means that whatever power is developed out of that one million and a quarter horse-power on this waterway will have to bear, in addition to the cost of the power, the cost of the canal. In other words, such power cannot and never will be developed and sold to the public at as low a price as would be the case if it were a purely power project. That is a feature which we should take cognizance of, and if we put our imprimatur on the principle of the second reading of the measure we as a parliament are approving, or at least those who vote for it, of that proceeding.
The point was raised by my hon. friend who is fathering the bill in the House that there might be compensation features in case the crown desired to take over the work. I have the clause under my hand. This again is a reason why we should reject the measure. We know the canal is not to be constructed; every hon. member is cognizant of that fact. And if we support the principle of the bill and we invoke clause 5 of the act of 1906-section 43 of the original act what do we let the government and the country in for? That section provides that His Majesty, his heirs and successors, may assume the possession of this property, and by way of compensation shall pay to the company the value of the work

actually done by the company up to the time of the giving of such notice, the making of plans, the cost and value of the plants and otherwise upon the ground; together with the value of all tangible property of the company. Everything that the company has, including the charter, its plans, its plants, its expenses to date-all must 'be paid for. We must compensate them for all these things and the value of the power incidental to it. Already, according to the brief brought to this House by my hon. friend from Ottawa, we find that the company expect to develop very large quantities of electrical energy. Does any hon. gentleman in this House, much less a member of the government, who has had experience in this matter suggest for a moment that there will not 'be a claim for compensation for the relinquishment of the power? They declare that if they get this charter through they will have absolute control of the waterpower on these waterways amounting, we are told to some million and a quarter horse-power -one of the most valuable franchises ever given to a private interest in the history of Canada. That is a pretty broad statement, but I will venture to repeat it; that we are at this moment about to vote on one of the most valuable franchises ever given to any private interest in the history of this country. And what is the country to get in return for it? Absolutely nothing. There is not within the confines of the bill a single provision to give any return to the country for this stupendous franchise.
My hon. friend from Dauphin (Mr. Ward) this evening sought to justify the stand that he has taken, and I desire to point out to him the rather anomalous position in which he finds himself. I want to impress upon him and upon other hon. members the danger of supporting the measure or voting for the second reading. It is all very well to say we can explain it away to those who are not familiar with parliamentary practice, but the fact of the matter is that we are voting for a principle and we are voting for the approval of this bill when we vote on the second reading. My hon. friend said this evening that he would suggest the erection of a federal hydro-electric commission to take over the water-powers on all our rivers and streams in Canada. Then he complained .that Manitoba was being exploited to-day by the lease which he said this government had made to some private interests on the Nelson river. Let him follow me for a moment. He complains because the Interior department had given a lease-I never heard of it, by the way-of water-power on the Nelson river in Manitoba, and that the people of Manitoba have been

Georgian Bay Canal Company
deprived of their rights. If such a lease has been given I agree with him. But what is he doing to-night? He is voting to deprive the provinces of Quebec and Ontario of a similar right. It is true that the wiater-powers and natural resources of Manitoba do not' constitutionally belong to the people of Manitoba; still he complains because in the administration of the water-powers of Manitoba this government is depriving the people of Manitoba of any say in their development. Yet by his vote to-night, he will attempt to deprive Quebec and Ontario of the very right which he complains they are being deprived of in Manitoba.


William John Ward: Will my hon. friend explain to this House-I am seeking for information -just how the water-powers of the Ottawa river are to be developed under the circumstances I pictured in my remarks?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I cannot recall in detail the circumstances pictured by my hon. friend, but there is no difficulty in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec coming to an understanding regarding the development of water-power on their rivers or on bordering rivers. Furthermore, we have the premiers of both provinces telling this government-not telling the government, but through Mr. Speaker telling the House-that they object to this parliament usurping the powers and rights which they in each province claim for their own. That is before us officially, and can we not trust these two premiers and their governments to make their own arrangements? They are not children; they do not require the federal government to make arrangements for them. It is their right, it is their power, they claim it, and no constitutional argument has been put forward to-night or at any other time to successfully combat their claim. So I submit they will work out that problem themselves.


William John Ward: Is it not a fact, and has it not been stated in this House repeatedly, that the water of the Ottawa river belongs to the people of Canada?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. The only claim the Dominion government makes to the water of the Ottawa river is for navigation purposes. For instance the right of diversion for waterworks or for electric energy belongs to the provinces. Even the fish in the river belong to the provinces. There is no question about that. The bed of the river also. belongs to the provinces. The only right the Dominion has is, ae I have said, the right regarding navigation. I say again, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this is not a navigation bill. That, is the point we make. The government
takes the position that this is a navigation bill. They know it is not. My right hon. friend knows perfectly well that Sir Clifford Sifton will never come before this government and seriously ask for authority to construct a canal for navigation purposes short of excess water-power, never in the wide world. The whole House knows that this is not a navigation scheme, a canal scheme. It is a power scheme, the most gigantic ever conceived in Canada up to this time, under the guise of and falsified as a canal scheme.
Now my hon. friend the sponsor of this bill said to the House the other day-and this is where I made the exception a moment ago-[DOT] that no power was to be sold except the surplus which might be developed over the needs of the canal. Again I want to point to the deception of that statement. I do not mean that in a discourteous or unparliamentary sense. I mean in so far as those behind the bill are concerned, the promoters; it is their deception to which I refer. And this is the deception: they come to parliament asking for a right which was granted in 1894, when the generation of hydro-electric energy was problematical; it was not a demonstrated commercial success for long afterwards. At that time they secured under their charter the right to the surplus power-surplus power which then and for many years afterwards had no value and no significance, and which meant very little to any person in this country except a few perhaps with vision. But to-day electrical energy is of primary and paramount importance to the people of Canada, especially the people of Ontario and Quebec in the territory adjacent to these water-powers. The very industrial life of these two provinces is dependent upon the future development of hydro-eleotric energy. Therefore I come to what my hon. friend said when in the course of his speech he sought to lead the House into this state of mind: Well, they were only getting a mere bagatelle, just the surplus power. As a matter of fact the power required for the canal would be a mere modicum of the power possible of development. I venture this statement, Mr. Speaker, that the 250 horse-power now being developed at Carillon would be ample to run the canal or even a larger work for all time to come. But we are told they can develop three or four hundred thousand horse-power, and it would be this surplus that they would have to sell to the public. We contend that this is not fair to the people of these two provinces or to the country as a whole.
Now I wish to say a word or two regarding the bill itself. I have all the various bills

Georgian Bay Canal Company
under my hand, and I notice that in every one of them the list of directors is set forth; but I call the attention of the government and of the House to this significant fact, that by section 2, cf the bill now before the House, to which we are about to give second reading, the section in the 1924 act which sets up the directorate is repealed, and if passed this bill will leave the company without any directorate at all so far as the records show. We have asked who are the directors. I want to ask the government:	Do they know who are
the directors of this concern? Surely this company is of sufficient importance that the House should be at least advised whom they are incorporating or re-incorporating. Who are to be the directors? Who are the people that are asking for this bill? It is not set out in the bill before us. It is deliberately deleted from the bill.
Furthermore, as my hon. friend from Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley) very properly pointed out this evening, all this company has to do is to start development at, say, the two largest water-powers on the waterway, one I understand at Carillon and the other farther up the river this side of Mattawa-I do not know the exact name-where I am told they can develop three or four hundred thousand horse-power; indeed one person told me the potential development is six hundred thousand horse-power. Supposing the promoters take possession of these two spots, commence their work under this charter-if it is given to them. They need not build a single foot of waterway on either side of these powers. All they need do is simply to develop the waterway at those points, take possession of the water-powers and utilize them, and then tell the government:	You can have the rest of the
canal if you want it. That is the principle of the bill. I say to the Prime Minister that under the rules of the House if this bill goes to the committee it will not be competent for the committee to vary the bill in these respects to any great extent, except with the consent of the promoters. I am quite sure that they will never consent to deletion of the right to develop hydro-electric power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask
my hon. friend this question: if it were to appear to the committee that the company were seeking to get powers which were not granted under its original charter, would not that be a sufficient ground for the committee to report against the House accepting the bill?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes; but I want to point out to the Prime Minister that these powers are in the original charter. That is the right

they have, as my hon. friend who sponsors the bill very properly pointed out. I cannot put my finger on the clause, but the original charter gives the company the right _ to take power in addition to that needed for the canal, and this right has been continued down to the present time. They can only sell power in excess of that required for the canal. Of course, that is ordinary common sense; but they are entitled to that power. How are their tolls fixed? By the railway board. That is in the original charter, and that is what we are quarrelling with. When the original charter was secured this power was valueless, it was a mere incident to the canal and was not considered of any importance at all. But during recent years, particularly during the last ten years, and more particularly during the last five years, the demand for power has become such that it is a subject of paramount importance, and the canal sinks into insignificance in relation to the value of the power. And that is the reason, if I may impress this upon the mind of the Prime Minister, why we are so bitterly opposed to the bill. It is not to stop genuine private interests from going to a committee, not at all; it is to prevent private interests securing a right under the guise of promoting something altogether different from what they are attempting to secure,


Mr. CANNON:: Under the charter as
granted would it be possible for these people to develop power without building the canal?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, certainly.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend has just
taken his seat. A moment ago I pointed out that the promoters can build a canal at Carillon falls with the necessary dam and locks. They would, incidentally to that worfcj develop from 200,000 to 400,000 horse-power. They could go up the river this side of Mattawa and there construct a dam, together with the necessary locks, and develop, I am told, from 300.000 to 600,000 horse-power more, and nothing in this bill now before us would oblige them to complete the waterway in between. Let me read what is here proposed:
The company may commence the construction of its canals, or any of them.
I want the House to bear those few words in mind. This is not a canal; it is a series of canals; it is not a specific work, but a whole chain of works. They may construct its canals or any of them before a certain time:
And if such construction is not commenced and such expenditure is not so made, or if the said canals are not completed and put in opera-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
tion within the said periods respectively, the powers granted to the company by parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said canals and works as then remains uncompleted.
The powers shall be null and void-to what extent? As respects that portion of the works and canals that remains uncompleted. The language is as clear as it could possibly be, and the intent of the promoters is equally obvious.


Lucien Cannon: Judging from what- my hon. friend has read, is it not a fact that the power developed, either on the whole of the works or on any section thereof, will always be incidental to the completion of the whole canal or of any section of it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certainly. The power at
these falls will be incidental, if you like to make it so.


Lucien Cannon: It has to be.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But what we claim is that these dams ought to be constructed for the purpose of power and not ostensibly for the purposes of the canal. In other words, we say that these promoters are coming before parliament with a deceptive measure. They come before us with unclean hands. They are seeking to deceive parliament, although I am ready to admit that parliament is not deceived. If you give the second reading to this bill you put the stamp of approval on the effort of the company to deceive this House and conceal what their real intent is.


Lucien Cannon: Will the hon. member pardon another interruption? This will be my last question. Am I to understand that my hon. friend would not be against the bill if it were really what it purports to be, and if the House were not deceived by it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, I would be against the bill in any case, and I will tell the hon. gentleman why. I may anticipate his next question, which he will not ask, seeing that the one he has just put he said would be his last. His next question would be, "Why have you voted for this measure during the last sixteen or seventeen years?" As a matter of fact I do not know that I always did vote for it, because it has always been a question with me; but I may state the reason why I would oppose it now in any case. I am speaking from memory and am therefore subject to correction, but I think I may safely say that during the past thirteen or fourteen years, two groups of experts, one appointed by the government from its own staff, and the other under Mr. Sanford Evans, have made a most exhaustive examination of this whole canal project, and
the last report of Mr. Sanford Evans was submitted about the year 1920 or 1922. I am not sure about the exact date, but in any case the report was brought down a few years ago, and in both instances these experts declared that in their opinion the canal scheme was not feasible. Until that time it was problematical whether it was or not, but that was their report. My own conviction is that, even if it were a straight canal scheme, it is not feasible.
I do not think it is worth my time to go into other reasons for rejecting this measure. I could cite other and very sound reasons, but that is not necessary. The canal feature of the bill is not argued in this House as an excuse for passing it, and I venture to say you would not get half a dozen members here to vote for the measure on the strength of the canal proposal. I have not heard a single member, apart from the hon. gentleman who has fathered the bill, who did not emphasize the power aspect of the project. I would not vote for the bill on either ground. But, to repeat myself, I am opposing it because, under the guise of a proposal to build a canal on this worn out charter, the bill seeks to obtain control of a million and a quarter horse-power, and is therefore the largest, the most significant and the most valuable franchise ever sought by a single corporation in the history of Canada.


James Dew Chaplin: Just for a few moments I want to indicate to the House what is involved in this matter. I want to point out what we are giving away in this bill and contrast that with the development that has taken place on the Niagara river. About the very time that this company came before parliament another company approached the Ontario government with a proposal to develop power at Niagara Falls. The House will be interested to know that the Ontario government gave to that company, an English concern, a contract for the development in perpetuity of all the power at Niagara Falls for the sum of $25,000 per annum. That, I say, was about the time that the present company came on the scene on the Ottawa river to build a canal. At that time the transmission of electrical energy was not known, and this English company, not being able to transmit any power, were forced to abandon the contract. There is now being transmitted in electrical current on the Niagara river at Niagara Falls over 1,000,000 horse-power, an amount equal to the horsepower that may be developed on the Ottawa, Does this House know what the province of Ontario is doing in addition to the development of hydro? That province, apart from

Georgian Bay Canal Company
what it is doing for the people of Ontario and of Canada, is paying a rental of $500,000 per annum to the parks commission for the upkeep of the parks of the province. In other words, this power which we are giving away is worth at least the amount which the Ontario government is paying to its parks commission. The power on the Ottawa river as a rental proposition is valued at $1,000,000 per annum. Is this government as a government going to overlook such a condition? Are hon. gentlemen opposite not continuing a pretty good franchise to their friends at $1,000,000 a year? I want to ask this government whether the Sifton family have not had enough out of the country. Is it not time that some of these gentlemen of the west, who know something of this group, realized that this government has no right to give them any more?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend why he keeps on repeating the statement that this government is giving away rights?


James Dew Chaplin: This government is backing the proposition. We have found that out now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my
hon. friend has made that statement because it is the insinuation which hon. gentlemen opposite have thrown out repeatedly in the course of this debate. I wish to make it absolutely clear that the government is in no way committed to the project, nor has it been so committed at any time directly or indirectly. This is a private bill in which the government has no interest other than to see that it is treated as other private bills are treated, and any remarks to the contrary are entirely false and unwarranted.


James Dew Chaplin: In reply to the Prime
Minister I would say that all he has to do to prove his words is to take off the whip and let the House decide the matter on division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I again rise
to a point of order, I ask whether or not t'he remark just made by the hon. gentleman, in view of what I have already said, is in order, and whether he should not be called upon to retract it?


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not see the question of privilege or the point of order. The Prime Minister has stated, not only to-diay but on Friday as well, that the government has no interest directly or indirectly in the present bill. The hon. gentle,manjhas only to accept the word of the Prime Minister. Now what
(Mr. Chaplin.]
does he mean by "taking off the whip?" I do not know; the 'Speaker does not know what the hon. gentleman meant, and until I do know what is meant I cannot rule.


James Dew Chaplin: I am quite willing to
accept the word of the Prime Minister, but I simply ask him to take off the whip.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What does my hon. friend mean by that?


James Dew Chaplin: Everyone knows w*hat the whips are doing with respect to this bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I still ask what my hon. friend means when he says, "take off the whip." I ask him to give a statement which is clear and candid1.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not know that I
can talk more plainly; that is as clear as'I can make it. I simply elucidated what I meant when I said the whips were working on the job and getting the members to vote as they were told.


Mr. ROBINSON:: I was paired with the	
hon. member	for East Essex (Mr. Odette).
Had I voted,	I would have voted for the
amendment.


Mr. PECK:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Bagot (Mr. Morin). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with
the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the
Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was paired with the hon.
member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RENNIE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.

163S

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Mr. SANDERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Seim). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Peter John Veniot: I was paired with the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. FAEARD (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amednment.


Mr. BOWMAN:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Hod-gins). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MERCIER (Outremont):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


George Halsey Perley: I have a regular pair with the hon. member for Bona venture (Mr. Marcil), but in talking to him this morning he was good enough to say that as this was a private bill the pair would not apply.


Mr. TOBIN:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker,
but as this was a private bill I considered that the pair did not apply; therefore I voted.


Arza Clair Casselman: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I was paired with the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DUSSAULT:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-nam). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Senn). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Beniah Bowman: I was paired with the hon. member for East Middlesex (Mr. Hodgins). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.	*
Mr. CHEVRIER moved that the bill be referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
Motion agreed to on division.
On motion of Mr. MACKENZIE KING the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Tuesday, March 29, 1927