1927-03-07

PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 118, respecting certain patents of James MoCutcheon Coleman,-Mr. Jacobs.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Customs and Excise) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 119 to amend the Excise Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. EULER:: This bill proposes no drastic changes. The amendments provide very largely for removing tracertainties which have been experienced in the way of interpretations of various clauses of the act. Beyond that, the other clauses are designed almost entirely to provide higher penalties for serious violations of the act. There is nothing else of importance in the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BRITISH COLUMBIA VEGETABLE GROWERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter from the firm of Hayward and Scott, wholesale produce and commission merchants, Vancouver, B.C., in connection with the export of vegetables to the British troops in China. I will not take up the time of the House by reading it all, but I wish to read this extract:
We notice Mr. Tolmie's inquiry and reply of Mr. Motherwell as to why white dealers and growers had no opportunity of quoting on potatoes supplied to the British forces in China.
We understand these orders were placed by Mr. Clarke who is the Dominion fruit inspector in Vancouver. The business was given to R. Robertson Company, and two shipments were made-R. Robertson Company shipping the first orders-buying both potatoes and onions from Chinese dealers. White dealers and growers had no opportunity of quoting on the first order. There were hundreds of tons of potatoes available in the hands of white dealers and growers, had they been given an opportunity to quote. The second order for potatoes which went forward on the last Canadian Pacific boat, Empress of Canada, sailing from Vancouver February 26, was also filled by R. Robertson Company.
The onions on the second order were supplied by Fraser-Wood Company. Some of the dealers heard this second order was being placed and called up Mr. Clarke, but received no encouragement from him-evidently it was a cut and dried proposition that Robertson Company was to receive this order-Fraser-Wood, however, brought a little influence to bear through Ottawa, and received the onion order.
This statement by Mr. Clarke and Mr. Robertson that it was impossible to supply potatoes and onions from white growers, is absolutely untrue, and also the statement that the time was too short to secure these goods, is also wrong. R. Robertson Company are brokers who do not carry any stocks. It may have been difficult for them to supply goods, but other dealers and growers who carry a stock on hand would have had no difficulty in filling these orders.
R. Robertson Company had the goods put up by Chinamen and these potatoes were grown by Chinamen. Messrs. Motherwell, Clarke and Robertson's assertions that white dealers and growers were unable to supply these goods is untrue.
There are thousands of tons of potatoes both in Vancouver and the adjoining districts grown by white growers and these could have been supplied, had they been given an opportunity of quoting. It surely does not look very consistent to have the Chinese supplying the ammunition to fight the Chinamen in China.
We are enclosing copy of a picture taken on the wharf showing these goods being delivered by the Chinese dealer in Vancouver.

Vermilion Wheat
I have also a picture of the dock showing a large number of potatoes in sacks, a truck loaded with potatoes alongside, with a Chinese chauffeur, and on the side of the truck appears the name Wong Fat. Has the minister any further information on this question?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: If my hon. friend had given
me an opportunity I might have had the documentary evidence with me. The first offer to fill this order for potatoes and onions was given, so far as my recollection goes, to a firm in the Okanagan valley, but they had not the goods and therefore we had to look for supplies elsewhere. We have not inquired into the colour of Mr. Robertson-I mean the colour of his skin, nor the colour of his politics, but I presume he is white. It never, however, occurred to me to inquire into the nationality of the growers who supplied these potatoes to Mr. Robertson. The second offer to have this order filled was given to Mr. Robertson as a responsible broker and I assume he got them where he liked as long as he complied with the conditions of the contract. There was only one thing upon which the British authorities, through the High Commissioner's office, insisted, and that was that all these goods would be examined carefully by the government inspector and that they must be of the proper quality. That condition was complied with. As regards the statement that some of these growers who supplied the goods to Mr. Robertson were Chinamen, that may be so. I do not know; I assume it is so; but when the overseas authorities wore buying wheat from the western provinces during the war I do not think anybody ever thought of asking who grew the wheat or what colour was the skin of the man who grew it. I do not want to magnify this or to make light of it; but with the Empress of Asia lying in the harbour scheduled to sail on a given date seven or eight days after the first communication, if the goods were not supplied on time and up to quality, the boat would sail without them. That is all I have to say at the present time, except that if it was an inadvertence not to find out in each case just who grew these goods and what was the nationality of the individual, then I must admit I was remiss, but that question was never put up to me by anybody.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I would like to ask the
minister if he will be good enough to make every effort to have any further orders filled * by white producers if possible.


William Richard Motherwell: We will surely give everybody, no matter what the colour of his skin is, an opportunity to supply these goods as long as the price and the quality are right.



MARITIME CLAIMS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I express the pleasure which we all feel upon seeing my right hon. friend the Prime Minister back in his place in the House of Commons to-day? He has returned in apparent health, strength and vigour, and we are all glad to see him back. During his absence we have done some serious business in this chamber under the genial guidance of the Minister of Finance, but we always like to have the head of the government present during our deliberations.
Could the right hon. gentleman give us some idea as to when he proposes to bring down to this chamber legislation in regard to the Duncan report? I do not ask him to give me the exact date, but if he could give us the approximate date it would satisfy a considerable curiosity on this side of the House.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING:: May I thank my hon. friend for the cordial welcome he has given me on my return to the House and also thank hon. members of the House for the hearty manner in which they have received his generous words? Replying to my hon. friend's question, I hope early next week to make a statement on behalf of the government as to the legislation which it is intended to introduce arising out of the Duncan report.



VERMILION WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. A further criticism was made by the Department of Agriculture a few days ago before the committee on agriculture in reference to the new wheat known as Vermilion. I ask the minister if the originator, Mr. Larcombe, was notified and given a chance to appear and to protect the license which was granted to him, I understand, on December 30 last year.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think he was notified
to appear before that committee, but as my hon. friend knows, after Mr. Larcombe learned
the result of the baking and milling test of
Pure Bred Stock

this Vermilion wheat, both at the experimental farm and at an independent milling concern at Winnipeg, he voluntarily withdrew the Vermilion wheat from public sale as seed, believing that in the public interest, it would not be advisable, in view of the report on the milling qualities, to offer the wheat for sale as seed, although he would personally be at some loss. He did that voluntarily.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is it the intention of the department to cancel his license?


William Richard Motherwell: The department has no authority to cancel his license.



PURE BRED STOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
desire to draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to a telegram I received. I rather think the same telegram, or one similar to it, was brought to his attention the other day, but I am not certain. It is from the agricultural representative at Fort William, and reads:
Understand Dominion Livestock branch discontinuing bull loan policy throughout Dominion. Fifteen per cent Fort William settlers will be deprived pure bred bulls. Will cause serious loss and discontent among pioneers. Strongly urge efforts reconsideration action. Writing.
I would like the minister to give whatever consideration he can to this.


William Richard Motherwell: I think my hon. friend is unnecessarily alarmed. I may say that I intend to make a statement in the course of a day or two which I hope will allay the fears not only of my hon. friend, but also of the animals in question.


Robert James Manion: I would like to assure my hon. friend that this telegram did not come from one of the animals.



BOARD OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Will the Minister of Railways inform me if it is the intention of the government to press the railway commission for a quick decision in connection with the case pending before that body, and which is sponsored by the Quebec harbour commission. I observe by the press that the government has made a similar request of the railway commission in connection with the case pending before them entered 
by the western provinces. I should like to know if they propose making a similar request in connection with the application of the Quebec harbour commission.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	The government
has not found any reason for urging expedition in the matter which is now going on actively before the railway commission. The former request arose out of an appeal relating to a matter of procedure before the board and in the judgment the government called attention to the necessity for expedition. The government is of opinion that expedition is required with respect to the whole general rates case now before the railway board, and we have every reason to believe that the board itself is using every means possible to bring about an early conclusion of the case. But the Board of Railway Commissioners cannot restrain the legal gentlemen representing the provinces and other parties, either in their examination of witnesses or in their presentation of argument. Only a few days ago the board did request counsel appearing for all parties to expedite the work of the board by concluding the evidence and arguments as soon as possible.



SOLDIERS INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vancouver South):: Has the Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment come to a decision with regard to the extension of time for application for soldiers' insurance? Some inquiries have been made, and it seems to be a matter of concern.


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Soldiers Civil Re-establishment):: No, the
matter has not been thoroughly and completely considered. It is under consideration now.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Could the minister tell us when a decision might be expected?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: Within the next
few days possibly.


Leon Johnson Ladner: The next few days?


John Warwick King: Possibly.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 71, respecting The Alberta Railway and Irrigation Company.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 76, respecting La Compagnie du Chemin de fer de Colonisation du Nord.- Mr. Parent.

Private Bills

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bili No. 73 respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Spencer-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Extension of time for completion of authorized line, etc.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I see this section has been amended, Mr. Chairman.


The CHAIRMAN:: Yes. This clause has been amended by adding after the word "uncompleted" in the last line, the following words, "provided that for the purpose of avoiding duplication of construction of that portion of the line west of Lloydminster, the approval of the route map may be made subject to joint construction or operation with the Canadian Northern Railway Company on terms to be agreed upon by the companies or settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada."


Mr. YOUNG (Weybum):: Should not
"Canadian Northern" read "Canadian National"?


Mr. DUNNING:: The charter in question is a Canadian Northern charter. The Canadian Northern Railway Company is still a corporate entity.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 77 respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada-Mr. McPhee- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Line of railway in Saskatchewan authorized, etc.	.
Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, I notice that this bill has been amended. Possibly the Minister of Railways can explain the amendment, or perhaps you, Sir, will read it.


John Frederick Johnston: The clause has been amended by striking out all the words from the twelfth line to the end and substituting other words, so that the clause now reads:
The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada, hereinafter called the "company" may within two years after the passing of this act commence to construct the following line of railway, namely:-
Then comes the amendment, from a point at or near Kandahar in or near township 32, range 17, west of the 2nd meridian, thence in a southerly direction, a distance of from 12 to 15 miles, thence easterly to a point in townships 28 or 29, range 12, west of the said meridian; or from a point at or near Foam Lake, in townships 30 or 31, range 11 or 12, west of the said meridian, thence in a general southerly direction, a distance of from 12 to 15 miles to a point in townships 28 or 29, range 12 or 13, thence in a westerly direction, a distance of about 30 miles.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 78 respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.
Mr. MA'NION:	Mr. Speaker, when the
time for the consideration of private bills came to an end on Friday night, I was dealing with the inadvisability of this House granting charters to any companies that, in a sense, are not bona fide. I pointed out that in the past there had been probably too much of a tendency to grant charters for various purposes to companies which were thus enabled to hold up the progress of the country. True, at times it is difficult to judge of the bona fides of those who apply for a charter, but I submit, Sir, that when the promoters do not exercise the powers which their charter supposedly intended them to take advantage of, then the granting of such a charter does harm to the country, in that the grantees are in a position to retard progress along certain lines on the plea that it might infringe upon their charter rights.
The present question has this merit, that it is not a party question, and every member can take his stand upon it without being accused of injecting party politics.
It is important to remember that the charter which under this bill it is now sought to extend was granted as far back as July 23, 1894, practically 33 years ago. Within two years of that date the work was to have been commenced and $50,000 expended, and in eight years it had to be finished or the charter would become null and void. Let me supplement that by reading section 44 of the original charter:
[Stage Direction]
Georgian Bay Canal Company
If the construction of the canals hereby authorized, to be constructed, or some of them, is not commenced and fifty thousand dollars are not expended thereon within two years after the passing of this act, or if the said canals are not finished and put in operation within eight years after the passing of this act, then the powers granted by this act shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said canals and works hereby authorized as then remains uncompleted.
Instead of that charter being cancelled it has been renewed thirteen times, and this is the fourteenth application to the parliament of Canada for the same purpose. Practically no work has been done except perhaps some surveys in the way of general investigation; but so far as the construction of the canal goes absolutely nothing has taken place. I pointed out on Friday night that many of the original charter holders are dead, and looking over the list this morning I find such names as Sir Henry Egan, George Cox, Dennis Murphy, Sir James Grant and Mr. Bergeron, who at one time was a member of parliament. Many of these charter holders have died in the meantime, and still the charter is being renewed, from time to time, although nothing has been accomplished in the interests of the country. The rights of many of the original charter holders passed at one time into the hands of Sir Robert Perks, and according to a letter which I received this morning, and which I presume other members are in possession of, those rights have now gone to other parties.
The original rights were mainfy three. In the first place, they were empowered to build a canal nine feet deep, to use whatever water was necessary, to expropriate whatever lands they required, to build terminals, wharves, and so forth-the usual phraseology of such a charter. Secondly, they had the right to charge tolls on the use of the canal. In the third place-and this is the keynote of the whole matter-they had the right to produce, lease and supply hydraulic, electric or other kinds of power, and so on. The original purpose was to build a canal-the Georgian bay canal project which was much talked of in the old days-from the head of the lakes, whence I come, down along the Ottawa river. But I believe that to-day the real purpose behind the request for the renewal is to develop some of the million horse-power which exists on the river.
Let me deal for a moment or two with some of the rights given in the charter. In the first place, as regards the right of a private company to construct public waterways and to allow ships to use those waterways, for which use that private company

levies a toll, I believe the majority opinion, not only in Canada but throughout the world, is opposed to any permission being given to any such corporation to own the canals or waterways of a country and to make a profit therefrom. It is a bad principle to permit the private ownership of any of the waterways of the country, and that is one of the principal reasons I have to advance against the company building this canal, if indeed it had any intention of so doing. I submit that the government of Canada should own and control its own waterways; those waterways should not be given to any private corporation.
Then in regard to the power question:	I
will admit that in 1894 when the charter was originally granted the power possibilities in connection with the scheme were not thought of, as they are to-day. Power development had not at that time reached any considerable proportions, and there was not the same speculation regarding its future as there is to-day generally, particularly in this province. Indeed, I notice that the right to develop power was added to the charter merely as a subsidiary clause at the tail-end of one of the main provisions. Perhaps I had better read it. It is to be found in subsection (g) of section 8. They shall have the right to:
[DOT]-lay out and lease or otherwise dispose of waterlots, and use, sell, lease or otherwise dispose of water brought by or for the said canals or works but not requisite for the same, and produce, lease and supply, or otherwise dispose of hydraulic, electric and other kinds of power in connection with the works hereby authorized.
That, as I say, is really the tail-end of a paragraph. It is a subsidiary clause. And that more or less proves my contention that at the time the charter was given the real object in view was the building of a canal purely and simply, and not the development of power. The foregoing clause I have read, coming as it does as a sort of afterthought, shows beyond question that the power possibilities of the scheme were looked upon at the time as of minor importance. To-day, however, thirty-three years later, power development has become one of the supreme questions of the country. I made it my business this morning to ascertain what development there had been at Niagara since the granting of the charter; I wanted to find out if figures would not illustrate my contention better than any argument I could offer. I suspected that in 1894 there was little if any development of electrical power at Niagara falls, and so I rang up the officers of this government and asked them what development there was at the falls in that year. They

Georgian Bay Canal Company
replied, none. Yet to-day, thirty-three years later, there is being developed at Niagara, on the Canadian side, 1,000,000 horse-power, and on the American side 500,000 in round figures. So that there you have a total development of 1,500,000 horse-power of electrical energy at Niagara falls, and all this since the charter was originally granted. I need not offer further arguments to show how tremendously important power development has become to this country. The figures I have submitted amply demonstrate this.
One of the greatest factors in commercial progress in this or any other country to-day is the development of commercial electric power. In 1894 power could not be transmitted over any considerable distance. Since that time means have been devised whereby this can be done; power transmission over great distances is a matter of daily practice. That explains the rapid advance which power development has made. Take my own section of the country: Nipigon falls for very many years-I think I may safely say up to 1917-lay altogether idle. They were not developed at all. About the year 1917, however, Adam Beck decided to develop those falls, which have a potential hydro development of about 300,000 horse-power. As a result of the activities carried on there they have already developed 75,000 horse-power of that maximum, notwithstanding the fact that at the time the development there was proposed it was opposed by some people at the head of the lakes. That 75,000 horsepower is used to-day at Port Arthur and Fort William by the pulp and paper industry, and not only has it been a great blessing to that section of Canada, but the power development there will probably make for- this is not an exaggeration, for the facts substantiate the statement-one of the greatest pulp and paper industries in the world, if not, indeed, the greatest. That illustrates the importance of power in our country. The great province of Quebec to-day is a considerable industrial centre, and its importance in this respect is due very largely to the great waterways that exists there. Manitoba is in the same position; that province is gradually coming to the front in power development. The same is true in some measure of British Columbia and of the maritime provinces. A few months ago I happened to be at the opening of the Grand falls development in New Brunswick, and there I was struck with the possibilities of that enterprise, which is one of the great power developments in eastern Canada. I make these points only to emphasize the great importance of power to-day
It seems to me to be our duty in this House to guard these power rights for the people of the country.
Mr. ARTHURS:: Is my hon. friend aware
that certain safe-guards already exist in the various supplementary acts relating to this scheme?


Robert James Manion: Of Ontario?


James Arthurs: No, acts passed by the
Dominion parliament with regard to the various renewals of the charter.


Robert James Manion: No, I am not aware of
that. My reading of the charter gives to the company very considerable rights with regard to the development of power on the Ottawa river. Of course, if ultimately it should turn out that they have no rights given them in the charter, I presume they would not object to having any supposed rights withdrawn. There would be no objection to their being confirmed in the right to build the canal, because I do not think they have any intention of building it anyway. My hon. friend the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) asks, how can the canal pay in competition with other waterways? I certainly do not believe the canal would pay without the power rights; it seems to me that the power development is what the company is after. It has been disputed that there is enough water to construct any large canals on the Ottawa river. I do not wish to be unfair; I am sure my hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) has the facts ready to give the House, and I will admit that the government engineers who some years ago were asked to investigate the feasibility of the Georgian bay canal did state that they could develop a canal with a depth of twenty-two feet.


Mr. LAPIERRE:: That has been generally accepted all over the country.


Robert James Manion: I am not disputing that in any way. I wish to read again section 44, because there is an item in this clause which, if this charter is renewed, gives this company a dangerous power. I will have to read the whole Clause to get the sense of it, but it is very short:
If the construction of the canals hereby authorized to be constructed, or some of them, is not commenced and fifty thousand dollars are not expended thereon within two years after the passing of this act, or if the said canals are not finished and put in operation within eight years after the passing of this act, then the powers granted by this act shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said canals and works hereby authorized as then remains uncompleted.
Georgian Bay Canal Company

As one of my hon. friends says that last sentence is the joker in this charter. That might give this company the right to build a great power scheme developing one million horse-power or even more on the Ottawa river; it would give them the right at the same time to start the construction of a canal within the eight years, or within the nine years, since I notice that in the charter now presented nine years has been made the limit, and if at the end of that time the government decided that this company was not going to carry out the building of that canal which was originally proposed in the charter, the government would be able to step in and say, "You apparently are not going to build a canal, and must stop any future development." But in that nine years this company might gobble up practically all the power which could be developed on the Ottawa river. Therefore that is another very strong reason, it seems to me, why we should hesitate to grant this charter as it now stands, and confer these powers upon this company.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: May I ask the hon.
gentleman a question? Is he avrare that there is a clause in that charter which allows the government to take over the work at any time?


Robert James Manion: Yes, and I am going to
read that clause later, but I am going to suggest that now is the time to take it over; nothing has been done in thirty-three years, and I think before anything is started is a good time to take it over.
Then there is another question which was brought up by Mr. Howard Ferguson, Premier of Ontario, with which no doubt he as a lawyer will be very much more familiar than I, because some of us in this House are not lawyers. That point has to do with the legal rights. Mr. Ferguson has pointed out, and it has been so stated by other lawyers, that at present it is an understood legal fact that the power rights are in the hands of the provinces and that the navigation rights are in the hands of the Dominion. I do not believe any one will dispute the latter statement, and on the other hand it can probably be proved before the courts that the power rights are in the hands of the provinces. If that is the case, we should make sure that that right remains with the provinces, and we should not take the risk of having a lawsuit on our hands by giving those rights to outsiders. In other words, this company might be given the right to build a canal, although I doubt very much if they will ever do so, but the provinces of Ontario and Quebec should retain their right 
to develop this power. When this question goes to committee, that point will be for the committee to decide.
I have a great deal of sympathy for my hon. friend from Nipissing and I also have sympathy for other hon. members who represent constituencies along the Ottawa river; in fact I have a little sympathy for myself, because the Ottawa and Georgian bay canal has been mooted in my part of the country for many years. But in reply to the arguments which I know the hon. member for Nipissing will later put on Hansard, I would say that he is really losing nothing for his constituency if this charter is not granted, because after all there is very little chance that this canal will ever be built even if this charter is granted; otherwise I might support him. Therefore he would simply be avoiding the danger of not having this canal developed until it is carried on later, probably by the government of our country.
Just to show the danger which such a charter suggests, I am going to quote for a moment from the Montreal Star of Thursday, March 3, 1927. In glancing over the news items in the Star I saw an advertisement which struck my eye. It was inserted by The Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited1, and gave notice to the people of Canada that they are going to apply to the parliament of Canada at this session for a charter in which they ask for exactly the same rights on the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and Kingston as is asked for in the charter under consideration on the Ottawa river between Montreal and lake Nipissing. So if we grant the application of this Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company to go on with this work, there is no reason in the world why we should not grant the charter which is going to be requested by this other company. I have no idea who are the people represented by Mr. Harris, who signed this advertisement as secretary of the company, but without knowing who they are I say now that the proposition should be turned down just as I believe the charter now under consideration ought to be refused by this House.
I believe the St. Lawrence canal system will ultimately be developed; on that river to-day between Montreal and Kingston are some canals which are 260 feet long and which will allow the passage of a boat of 44 foot beam and 14 foot depth, but I believe that in the near future, using those words from a national standpoint rather than in their ordinary sense, the government will be able to begin the construction of canals which will permit larger boats to pass from the head of the lakes to Montreal, and possibly to cross

Georgian Bay Canal Company
the ocean. Even to-day there are boats which come across the Atlantic and proceed to the head of the lakes. As a boy, thirty years ago, I can remember a fairly large Norwegian boat, something over 240 feet in length, which came to the head of the lakes with a cargo from Norway and returned there with another cargo, and during navigation there are some small ships utilizing these canals on the St. Lawrence river. I believe that in the near future these canals will be enlarged in association with the development of the Welland canal, and that the grain of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) and of the farmers of the House and their friends, .instead of being carried to Port Colborne or Buffalo or Georgian bay ports, will go direct to Montreal where it will be transhipped to ocean going boats, and will be carried across the ocean with a saving to them of anywhere from five to ten cents a bushel. On the Welland canal we have already spent over $75,000,000, and ultimately our expenditure there will reach $110,000,000. Eighteen states of the union have declared themselves in favour of the development of the St. Lawrence river to a depth of 25 or 30 feet; these states have a population of 40,000,000 people, and are tributary to the great lakes. Herbert Hoover, Julius Barnes, the International Joint Commission and various other public bodies and public men in the United States have recently come out strongly in favour of the canalization of the St. Lawrence river. There is also on the St. Lawrence river some 4,000,000 horse power of potential electric energy to be developed, while on the Georgian Bay canal I believe there is something over 1,000,000 horse power. The estimated cost of developing the St. Lawrence canals, including the cost of the power scheme, is .-something like $252,000,000, and it has been recommended by the International Joint Commission that to this the cost of the Welland canal of which I spoke a moment ago should be added, and that the total should be divided between the two countries in proportion to the benefits received. In other words, if that were done and if the St. Lawrence canal scheme were carried through, the Dominion of Canada would not have very much to pay because of our vast expenditure in connection with the Welland canal. New York and Buffalo and some other centres which are opposing the canalization of the St. Lawrence will be to my mind ultimately defeated; they may delay the building of these canals but they cannot stop it. I submit that that canal would benefit not only the prairie provinces, by the lower rates on grain, but it would also benefit the city of Montreal.
1 do not believe, and in this I am supported by the opinions of shipping men, that ships would go across the ocean; they would transfer their cargoes at the port of Montreal or at some maritime port, and those cargoes would only undergo one transhipment instead of two or three, as is now the case.
To a certain extent the same argument would apply to the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian bay canal scheme if it were carried through. At the same time there is little chance of the canal feature of this project being proceeded with. I am pointing out merely the advantage, the ultimate advantage to Canada, of the other canals which I have no doubt will be built long before the Ottawa and Georgian bay canal and which will also put the maritime provinces in a more advantageous position in regard to the amount of coal which they could ship to the central parts of Canada. We imported last year from seventeen to eighteen million tons of coal, and of this amount some twelve million tons I think, of bituminous coal, most of which, or a large proportion of it,, was used in the province of Ontario. The maritime provinces cannot reach the province of Ontario at the present time with their coal because of the high cost of shipment from the port of Montreal west. But with the St. Lawrence canals deepened, as I think they will be deepened, the maritime provinces should be able to supply a large amount of the coal which is now being used in Ontario and other sections of Canada and which is being purchased from foreign countries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that this project should be given to a private corporation to develop; I believe it should be developed by this government. I believe that our waterways should remain in the hands of the government, and not be handed over to private corporations. In other words-and I have pretty nearly finished the argument I wish to make-I believe that both of these charters should be refused by this House; ultimately I believe they will be refused. I have noticed editorials in the Toronto Mail, Conservative; in the Toronto Globe, Liberal, and in the Ottawa Journal and Ottawa Citizen, of opposite sides of politics; and in the Montreal Gazette of this morning, all taking the same attitude, and all opposed to the granting of this charter. Mr. Ferguson, the Conservative Premier of Ontario, has come out and opposed it and he was supported in that attitude, as he is very rarely supported, by Mr. Raney. I believe that Mr. Sinclair will probably, although he has not announced himself so far as I know, take the same attitude as Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Raney. In other



Georgian Bay Canal Company
words there is almost a unanimity of desire to refuse to grant to these private people the right to develop electrical power and to develop the canal system on the Ottawa river. There will be no injustice,, it seems to me, in cancelling this right at the present time. I have already read to you section 44 of the company's charter. May I also read section 43, which is as follows:
Her Majesty

This was in the original charter and it is still in the charter.
*-her heirs and successors, may at any time assume the possession and property of the said canals and works, and of all the rights and privileges and advantages of the company, all of which shall after such assumption be vested in Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, on giving to the company one week's notice thereof and on paying to the company the value of the same, to be fixed by three arbitrators or the majority of them-
This is still a part of the charter which the company originally received. They had eight years originally, they have had in all thirty-three years to do something toward the development of this right, and they have done nothing. Therefore, I submit, there would be no injustice to them if you took from them any further rights they possess, giving them, of course, whatever compensation they might be entitled to by justice and by right.
I believe, Sir, that now is the best time to stop any further interference with the canal system, with the waterway system, of our country. I believe it is the duty of this parliament to take that step, and to refuse in the future to any company the right to take possession of our waterways. In the second place I believe it is the duty of this parliament to protect the waterways and electrical powers of our country for the benefit of the people of Canada.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I wish to deal briefly with this very important measure. I think we are all indebted to the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). for having, at this stage, brought to our attention the very far reaching character of the proposed measure, and while in ordinary cases a private bill does not meet with very much opposition or very much discussion at the present stage, nevertheless this bill, while appearing as a private bill is really a public bill, and is of such great importance that we are entitled to deal with it fully on the present occasion. My reason for discussing this bill is because of its relation to two of our problems, first, transportation, and secondly our industrial development as it is affected by hydro electric power. This fact
[Mr. Manion.l
emphasizes the importance of the measure. We have heard a great deal about our transportation system and our transportation difficulties, and much has been done in the last few years looking toward the solution of those difficulties, and also a great deal has been accomplished in the promotion of our industrial growth through the development of hydro electric power.
The senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) who has the bill in charge rather thought that its discussion at this stage was in the nature of opposition to the measure. But bearing in mind the importance of the bill* I do not think that is a fair contention. I think it might just as well be contended that the hon. member was perhaps endeavouring to rush the bill through committee as that we were endeavouring to obstruct it. What does this bill really propose to do? It relates to a charter that is thirty-three years old, to a charter granted in the year 1894, for the construction of a canal-or perhaps more correctly speaking a series of canals-on the Ottawa river. That charter, as has been said, has been renewed thirteen times. One would have thought that the company had had ample time to go ahead and undertake this work if it ever intended to do so. This great lapse of time should arrest and command the attention of the House. It makes it our duty to look into the situation now and compare it to the situation that existed thirty-three years ago. The situation, as has already been pointed out, is an altogether different one. We must look upon the matter as conditions exist to-day rather than as they existed thirty-three years ago.
A careful reading of the charter makes it perfectly plain that the main object was the construction of this canal or series of canals, and that the development of hydraulic or electric power was only incidental to the main undertaking. The charter provided that the company that constructed the canal should have the right to charge toll. Now I think it is absolutely sound to contend that all waterways, all canals of this character, should be built, owned and operated by the Dominion itself. That is the policy which we have been following in Canada with such success, and in pursuance of which we have made such enormous expenditures of money. The construction of the canal at an earlier period would have been much more feasible than at the present time except for the power question. The cost of construction thirty-three years ago and down until the time of the war would have been much less than it is now. We must assume that the companv

Georgian Bay Canal Company
have made reasonable efforts to carry out the privileges, the opportunities, which this charter has granted them. Yet in this long period of thirty-three years they have not been able to finance the matter, to construct the canal, nor to do anything practical to show that the proposition is one that can be carried out.
As I have said, conditions have changed entirely and perhaps there has been no greater change than in connection with our canals. 'Since this charter has been granted we have enlarged the Soo canal; we have enlarged the St. Lawrence canal; we have undertaken the construction of the Welland canal, and surely all this work that has been carried out and that is in progress must have an effect upon the transportation question and upon the route which the grain will take. All these must operate to the detriment and disadvantage of the proposed Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian bay canal.
Before we engage in any further canal construction we should see how these improvements will work out and what effect they will have upon the transportation of our grain and commerce generally. We also have the fact that the Panama canal has been constructed and is exercising a considerable influence upon the movement of grain. The Hudson bay railway is under construction, and if this route is of any value at all, if it is practicable, it will have an effect and will divert traffic which might in the beginning have been expected to find its way by this proposed canal.
While there has been this very striking change in the canal situation, there has been an equally striking and important change in connection with the power situation. In the period of thirty-three years the whole hydroelectric system of Ontario and of the adjoining province of Quebec has grown up and has assumed an influence and place, the importance of which we can scarcely over-estimate, in the industrial development of those two provinces. We must consider this proposition in the light of this feature and if this charter is renewed, this company, while acquiring the right to construct the canal and to levy tolls as against free canals-and this in itself appears to be an unsound proposition-will have in its control the development of 1,000,000 or 1,125,000 horse-power. Not only Ontario and Quebec, but the whole Dominion of Canada is vitally interested in this proposition. I cannot think of anything that touches our life at more vital points than the development of hydro-electric power. It has much to do with our industrial development; it has a great deal to do with transportation on 3264ft-604
our railway systems; it will have much to do in solving our immigration problem, and is therefore one of the most important features of our industrial life to-day. Is it right or proper that by a side wind, as it were, we should hand over to this company, when such was not in contemplation in the original transaction, the control, the disposition of 1,000,000 horse-power? Such a proposition is so unreasonable, so contradictory to the public welfare, that it ought not to be entertained for a moment.
When we are asked to give this company a fourteenth renewal of its charter, surely the promoters of this bill must make out a very clear case. They must be compelled to show that it is in the public interest that this renewal should be granted at this time. Let us see what the effect of the renewal will be apart from what I have already stated. Supposing the company does nothing as it has done nothing for thirty-three years, the effect of inaction will foe to tie up this 1,000,000 horse-power for eight or ten years longer and also to tie up the development of the canal system on this river. This surely was not contemplated and it cannot be favourably contemplated at the present time.
The next question which arises is this: Have we any jurisdiction to grant to this company the rights for which they are asking? It is admitted, of course, that this parliament is supreme in the matter of navigation; but we have had several decisions with respect to the rights of the provinces to surplus waters, the lands under the waters and the riparian rights, and I think I am safe in saying that there is at least very grave doubt whether the Dominion of Canada has any right to grant to a company the use of surplus waters or the right to develop hydro-electric power. The rights of the two provinces interested must be recognized. We should not do anything that will delay the possibility of their carrying out legitimate developments along these lines. We should not, with our eyes open as it were, do anything that will lead to conflict, to litigation, with these provinces, and surely if this charter is renewed we may expect that to be the result. Ontario is hungering for the development of hydroelectric power, and the two sources from which we are looking for this development in eastern Ontario are the Ottawa river and the St. Lawrence river. An obstacle has been placed in the way of development on the Ottawa river by the action of this parliament in granting this charter, and we think the time has now come when that obstacle can be removed, when at least it should not be continued, and

Georgian Bay Canal Company
when Ontario and Quebec, each being equally interested in this power, should be free to go ahead and make this development.
On the St. Lawrence river there are complications of a different character, but action again on the part of this government is necessary before we can get any relief. Let me as a representative of one of the constituencies of eastern Ontario urge this government to take every action possible for the early removal of these obstacles and for the cooperation which is necessary with the provinces for the development of hydro-electric power on these two streams. Let me suggest also to the government that perhaps this is an opportune time to clean up the Chicago water steal. Our friends in the United States are very anxious to enter into some arrangement for the development of hydro-electric power on the St. Lawrence, and it would be only fair and right to say to them that before we will enter into an agreement on this question we must have a complete clean-up and settlement in connection with the Chicago water steal.
This is not a party question and should not be. It is not a question of one or two provinces against the rest of the Dominion, but a matter in which we are all interested and for which we wish to find the best possible solution in the public interest. In support of my contention, I refer to two editorials in the Toronto Globe, the first appearing on March 2, 1927, from which I will quote a couple of paragraphs. The article is headed The Georgian Bay Canal, and reads:
This is the measure which would have been endorsed in principle last week had it not been for the interference of Sir George Perley. It will come before the House again, and it will bear watching. The existence of this charter and of the vague hope that the canal will be built prejudices discussion of St. Lawrence development plans. If the canal were constructed and operated under the charter, a system of toll charges would be permitted, while tolls on all other canals in Canada have been abolished. Most serious of all, however, would be the handicap under which the development of negotiations of hydro would be placed along the route involved.
In the public interest Parliament can hardly take this charter seriously any longer. The company has not even filed with the government working plans which have met with approval. Thirty-three years has been a long enough time to toy with a valuable public franchise.
Then, in the same paper, a very able editoral headed The Bill Should be Killed deals with the matter more exhaustively, and I quote from that editorial, as follows:
When the charter was granted in 1894 the advantages of public ownership were not fully

understood. Conditions are different to-day. The importance of water-power is appreciated. The people of the Ottawa valley and of all the territory contiguous to these rivers will profit immeasurably if they are given the full benefit of the "white coal" which now awaits development in that part of the country. If this power is permitted to become the property of private interests they will pay dearly for its use, while under public ownership they will have it in perpetuity at cost. It is their duty, no less than that of tne rest of the province, to see that this advantage is retained.
The building of a canal and the exploitation of power are two distinct matters. If the company wants to build a canal, this should not confuse the more immediate and more important question of power. It would be serious enough to give a private corporation the right to own and control what will be in time, no doubt, an important navigation channel, but to alienate from the public 1,000,000 or more horse-power of current for the purpose of public exploitation and to enter into competition with public ownership is something which this Province cannot tolerate.
So that we have the two objections. To sum it up, we have the objection that the canal should not be constructed by a company with the right to charge tolls, and the other objection that the immense power possibilities should not be handed over to any private company. I wish to make a few suggestions in connection with this matter, which I hope will commend themselves to the House. I submit that we should decline to renew this charter, and that the government should pronounce against any such renewal. In the second place, I think we should divorce- perhaps that is a good term-the canal proposition from the power proposition. We grant many divorces in this parliament and I think such a divorce would be more deserving than many that we do grant The construction of the canal should be undertaken as a public work at the public cost, and the power proposition should be developed by the two provinces and the Dominion jointly. The share of the power to which the province of Ontario is entitled going to the Hydro-Electric Power Commission, and the share which the province of Quebec is entitled to going as that province may direct. Let us construct the canal as a public work, and let us divide the power. At present it would appear that the three jurisdictions have, as it were, a blocking right in connection with this development. This government may, in its jurisdiction with respect to navigation, obstruct the provinces from undertaking development, and the provinces may also obstruct the Dominion, a right which they undoubtedly have, which will prove very embarrassing. So that it seems to me that the Dominion and the two prov-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
inces should get together, that they should decide not to renew this charter, that they should agree upon a plan for the development of power that will not interfere with navigation, and if, in connection with the development of power, some portion of the cost should be paid for improvement in navigation, then a contribution in this direction should be made. All three, the Dominion, the province of Ontario, and the province of Quebec are equally interested on behalf of the .public and in the public interest, and it should not be hard for the three authorities to get together and arrive at some solution which would be fair to these people who hold the charter. They have held this charter for thirty-three years. It has been renewed, and I would make them a reasonable and fair compensation for any work they have undertaken, as provided in the charter itself.


James Arthurs: Has there been any
opportunity for this company to commence operations under the act? As I understand it, the Dominion government must approve of their plan before they could possibly start operations.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I understand it, they have never filed any plan calling for approval.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: The plans were all filed and were submitted in 1926.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Surely, after a period of thirty-three years, they have had ample opportunity to file plans. I am told now that the plans were not filed until 1926.


James Arthurs: May I state that in the
meantime, the Dominion government has spent about a million dollars on a survey of this proposition, the plans of which were accepted.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I hope they will spend a lot more money investigating before they hand this charter over to any private company again. I think I have dealt with this matter from the standpoint of our duty, and from the standpoint of the public interest, as it is represented by this House and by the provinces. As for myself, I am opposed to the renewal of this charter and I hope action will be taken to remove every obstacle that remains in the way of the development of this enormous block of power by these two provinces in the public interest.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to speak at any length on this occasion, but as there has been considerable discussion and as the subject matter of this bill means much to
us in northern Ontario, for on the construction of the proposed canal depends our future industrial development, and we have waited patiently for it for 30 years, I am going to ask the indulgence of the House while I treat this subject from the standpoint of the people in northern Ontario.
As has been repeatedly said, this project has been before the House for at least 33 years, and for 14 years its promoters have secured renewals of their charter. In 1921 and again in 1924 renewals were granted without any objection. In northern Ontario we do not look upon this as merely a power project. To us it is a project of national importance, for not only is the province of Ontario interested in its realization, but it is of vital interest to the farmers of the prairie provinces and to the coal miners in Nova Scotia. So great is the interest in northern Ontario and so consistently have the people there advocated the construction of this canal, that I propose to read a few telegrams that I have received from different parts of the province:
North Bay, February 25, 1927.
North Bay heartily endorses renewal of Georgian bay canal charter for immediate construction. Canada needs this undertaking at once, if spoken optimism for the future is to be realized.
D. Barkeb, Mayor.
North Bay, February 24, 1927.
North Bay Board of Trade endorse bill for renewal of charter of Georgian bay canal on understanding that company will proceed with work immediately.
H. H. Charlton, Secretary.
Toronto, Ont., Feb. 24, 1927.
Heartily endorse granting renewal of charter for construction of Georgian bay canal.
Theo. Legatjlt.
A. Y. Watters.
Englehart, February 24, 1927.
This community endorses renewal of Georgian bay canal charter and immediate construction by private interests.
J. Clark, Acting Mayor.
Renfrew, February 24, 1927.
We endorse renewal of Georgian bay canal charter, work to commence at once.
C. McD. Logan, Mayor Renfrew.
Mattawa, February 24, 1927.
Mattawa is one hundred per cent behind you re construction of Georgian bay canal. We would impress upon you the wish that a portion of the first expenditure he made here.
John Lindsay, Mattawa.
Mayor.
Pembroke, February 24, 1927.
Have received telegram from Mayor, North Bay asking town to endorse renewal of Georgian bay canal charter. Holding special meet-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
ing town council to-night to deal with it. Please wire information that might assist us to arrive at decision.
J. P. Duff. Mayor.
Cobalt, February 24, 1927.
Will strongly support your effort to secure renewal of charter for the Georgian bay canal.
Frank Lendrum, Mayor.
Parry Sound, February 24, 1927.
Parry Sound desires renewal of Georgian bay and French river ship canal.
James Ludgate.
Callander, February 24, 1927.
Callander and township of North Himsworth consider that the very life and future mercantile prosperity of the dominion depends on the construction of the Georgian bay canal. We see that the country has entered upon an era where route capable of floating oceangoing cargo vessels should be constructed at once. No other canal can be feasible. Therefore we heartily endorse the renewal of Georgian bay canal charter.
G. K. Morrison,
Reeve Township North Himsworth.
Callander, February 24, 1927.
Township of East Ferris feels that the construction of the Georgian bay canal at once will be of great value to northern Ontario, and the Dominion. We heartily endorse the renewal of the Georgian bay canal charter.
John Dufresne,
Reeve, East Ferris.
Cochrane, February 24, 1927.
Town of Cochrane heartily endorses Georgian bay canal charter.
F. C. Ivey, Mayor.
Pembroke, February 25, 1927.
At special meeting of council held last evening the following resolutions were unanimously passed:
Moved by Mr. Taylor seconded by Mr. Brook that a committee composed of Mayor Duff, Dr. M. McKay, D. A. Jones, M. F. Fellowes, W. H. Williams, J. D. L. Leiteh, T. H. Moffatt, Dr. Cotnam, Alexander Stuart, M.P.P. and the mover be appointed for the purpose of calling a public meeting to discuss the Georgian bay canal and that this committee arrange to have some outside speakers, the council to pay any expense incurred by this meeting, and the mayor to be chairman.
D. W. Blakely, Clerk.


Mr. IRVINE:: Does not my hon. friend
think that if the gentlemen who sent these telegrams had been anxious to have this canal constructed they would have sent their messages fifteen, five, or even two years ago to the holders of the charter? Is it not late to send them now?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: I am speaking for the
people of northern Ontario. They have been desirous of having this canal built for 30 years. In 1923 a very large and influential

delegation waited on Sir Lomer Gouin, then acting Prime Minister during the absence of Mr. Mackenzie King, and also on the Minister of Public Works, Mr. King. At that meeting representatives from every part of northern Ontario secured from the federal government an undertaking to expend $200,000 to retain the water levels in order to develop water-power on the French river.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does not the
hon. gentleman think that those who have sent these telegrams and those for whom he is speaking would be well satisfied if the canal were constructed as a public work and free from tolls?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: The popular opinion in
the northern country is that you cannot separate the power from the canal scheme, and that if you are ever going to have a canal it will have to be constructed along the lines laid down by the company that is asking for the renewal of the charter to-day. I will come to that a little later.


Milton Neil Campbell: Might I be permitted
to ask the hon. member a question? Does he really think that this company ever intends to build the proposed canal if the charter is extended?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: I have information
along those lines, and I hope to be able to satisfy the hon. gentleman before I resume my seat. I was trying' to demonstrate the opinion of northern Ontario regarding the construction of the canal, and to show why the feeling prevails that if we are ever to have this Georgian bay ship canal, which, as I pointed out before, means more to northern Ontario than any other national work that could be undertaken, we must have it constructed by a company such as the concern which is now requesting" an extension of the charter. It was stated the first night of the debate by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) that the original members of the company had largely disappeared, and that in fact no provisional directors were mentioned in the application for the renewal of the charter. Let me inform the hon. gentleman that in 1905 the company reorganized with a subscription of $10,000,000 in stock of which $1,000,000 was paid up. This dispensed with the necessity for having provisional directors. It was also said that Sir Robert Perks and his group were no longer behind the charter, being unable to finance the construction of the canal. Further, the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) alleged that the charter, having been carried by Sir Robert Perks for many years, was

Georgian Bay Canal Company
finally handed over to other parties when Sir Robert got tired of it. I have in my hand two cablegrams which I wish to read in answer to the statements made by hon. gentlemen:
London. Winfield Sifton, Chateau Laurier.
Perley incorrect stating as reported to-days London Times that English company failed obtain money construction. Whole canal capital was twice offered government by responsible parties one at three per cent in 1901 and again in 1910 at three and a half per cent.
Perks.


George Halsey Perley: Was that capital not offered solely on the understanding that there would be a federal guarantee?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: Naturally. I will come
to that later.


George Halsey Perley: It is easy to get capital if the government guarantees.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: I want to quote another cablegram:
London, February 28, Winfield Sifton, Chateau Laurier, Ottawa. Sir George Perley is quite mistaken. All English shareholders including myself retain as much financial interest as ever. British shareholders sincerely trust Canadian parliament will not refuse renew charter especially now when company have stated intention immediately construct Ottawa-Montreal section.
Perks.
As I said before, this subj ect has been treated merely from the standpoint of power development.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Will the
hon. member inform the House of the extent of the commitments to which he has referred?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: I will come to that in
a moment. We regard the question as one of transportation. Northern Ontario has become one of the largest wealth producing sections of that province. As so ably demonstrated by my hon. friend from Fort William a few days ago, northern Ontario is now one of the largest and most promising mining fields in the world. We have produced in that district within the last twenty-five years over nine hundred million dollars' worth of minerals. In the section in which I live we have produced over 85 per cent of the world's nickel, while throughout the north country, in all that great pre-Cambrian shield which blankets the whole of northern Ontario, there exists one of the greatest stores of * Mother Nature's wealth, of which we have scratched only 5 per cent. This part of Canada has contributed more during the last fifteen years to the industrial development of older Ontario, to the development of the industrial centres of the province, to the trade of Toronto and many other cities, than any other factor in the commercial life of the province. To-day that section of the country, producing immense wealth, finds itself on the eve of seeing concluded a project which will mean a greater development than it has ever known. It means the canalization of the Ottawa river which will link us up with the great lakes and with the lower ports of the St. Lawrence. By the plans which were deposited with the government a few years ago, construction will take place a little above the confluence of the Mattawa and the Ottawa rivers which will render the great lakes navigable right into the mining country of Ontario, bringing Haileybury, New Liskeard and Ville-Marie, as seaports, into direct communication with the various ports of Canada.
This is the great scheme that has agitated northern Ontario for the last twenty-five years and it is to-day so near realization that the people are anxious to see it carried to a successful conclusion. What is the opposition to this scheme? We heard no opposition to the construction of the Georgian bay ship canal until there was a move to control the Carillon water-power. Now we find considerable opposition developing. On the upper Ottawa the agents and engineers of the International Paper Company have men investigating the great water-powers, and in a few days we shall see two or three great dams built on the upper waters of the Ottawa which will actually control 1,000,000 horsepower. This will come into the possession of a private corporation, as happened on the Gatineau. We in Ontario who have waited for the development of the northern country know that if we are to have a Georgian bay ship canal we must secure it through the means of power development. It must be carried by power, and any other scheme projected or suggested will not meet the requirements of the northern section of that province nor give the transportation facilities to which that part of the Dominion is entitled.
What are the promises of the company on which we base our hopes for an early construction of the canal? I have before me a part of the brief which has been discussed. We know very well that it became very difficult after the close of the war to obtain cheap money. As was stated by the hon. member for Argenteuil, Sir Robert Perks came to this House year after year, for many years, and attempted to obtain the assistance necessary to carry out a national undertaking of this importance. But to-day in view of this im-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
provement and in view of the increased value of water-power, the holders of this charter find that if they are permitted to have the charter extended for two years more they can give northern Ontario these transportation facilities which have long been promised. Here is what they propose to do. Upmi the granting of this charter they will immediately start the construction of that section of the canal from Montreal to Ottawa. This will take about three years and will produce 219,000 horse-power at Carillon and 4,100 horsepower at Ste. Anne's. This would give continuous navigation as far up the river as the city of Ottawa, and would make Ottawa a port; it would complete 120 miles out of a total of 440 miles, or 27 per cent of the whole project; the cost will be about $55,000,000, all of which will be new money spent in Canada and which constitutes roughly 20 per cent of the total cost of the project. Completion of this section will extend continuous navigation up the Ottawa river from salt water to above AmprioV. The next section, section 2, will take two years to complete; it will produce 158,000 horse-power, will be 54 miles in length or about 12 per cent of the total mileage and will cost about $40,000,000, or roughly 14 per cent of the total cost.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the hon. member referring to?


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: This is the brief of the charter company. These details can all be discussed in committee. At the end of five years a total of 174 miles will have been constructed at a cost of $95,000,000, or 24 per cent of the complete project in mileage and 34 per cent in money. Now, Mr. Speaker, we in northern Ontario who have waited patiently all these years feel that under the circumstances this government will be perfectly justified in extending this charter for another two or three years; we have already waited 30 years, during which no objections have been made to this power proposition. The situation as it is to-day would mean that the granting of separate power rights on the upper Ottawa river would remove the possibility of a canal for all time, and that accounts in a very large measure for the numerous telegrams I have received and for the anxiety which exists in the north country over this enterprise. According to the plans which are now on deposit with the government, an expenditure of $282,000,000 within the next ten years is called for, and under this charter the provincial rights are reserved. But we find ourselves in this position, that whilst the power development will be available for the government of Ontario, we have in the prov-	: t i
ince of Quebec a government which is opposed to government ownership, which means that this water-power development will eventually come into the hands of one company, creating another great power monopoly on the Ottawa river and leaving the owners of remaining timber limits at the mercy of this corporation. That is what we in northern Ontario envisage in this situation.
The feasibility of the canal has long been conceded, and the plans have been before this government for a number of years. The engineering difficulties which were numerous in the early days of survey have entirely disappeared, and there is no longer any fear that these difficulties will be encountered. Furthermore, I would warn my friends from Montreal that the scheme which no doubt the large power corporations are going to put into effect on the waters of the upper Ottawa river will make a tremendous difference in the water levels of the St. Lawrence river. All engineers will tell you that under the modem system of constructing dams, where large areas of low lying lands are flooded and large bodies of water are exposed to evaporation, you will have a continual reduction in the water level, and that is what will happen if the waters of the upper Ottawa are dammed in order to create large units of electrical power. On the other hand, if you allow this canal scheme to be carried on along the lines called for by the plans, in order to maintain navigation it becomes necessary that you retain the water level at 24 feet. The plans as they exist to-day call for a canal 24 feet deep from the Georgian bay to Montreal, capable of accommodating the largest ships sailing the great lakes. It will be the most economical route for the shipment of grain, and this is a question which has been discussed before. All of our Progressive friends are familiar with the transportation costs on grain, but we know that once this canal is opened there will be a very great diversion of the grain now carried by the way of Buffalo.; the route will be shorter by several hundred miles; it will be entirely within Canadian territory and absolutely under the control of the Dominion government, and grain will be carried for at least three cents a bushel less than it is carried to-day.
Now let us consider the situation in northern Ontario, where we use tremendous quantities of coal in our mines. There is a continuous demand for coal in northern Ontario, because most of our ores have to be treated. We are at present importing into the town of North Bay alone over 980,009

Georgian Bay Canal Company
tons of bituminous coal and the saving on that coal alone if it were transported by water would be over $1,250,000. Just think for a .moment what it means to that part of Ontario if the French river development is completed; North Bay, now a city with a population of 15,000, would be a centre of water navigation. To-day North Bay is the front door of this great northern country; it is gradually becoming a great commercial centre but until we have more power in order to attract industries, we must for a number of years remain at a standstill. We have an excellent proof of that in the fact that a few years ago the International Nickel Company, for want of electric power, was forced to go to Port Colbome and erect its smelters there. A few years ago also the British American Nickel Company, which has spent over $25,000,000 in the development of the Murray mine at Sudbury, was compelled to erect its refineries at a point within a few miles of Ottawa, where it could get large quantities of hydraulic and electric power at a very low figure. Now, Sir, within the last few years, near one of the largest nickel deposits in the world, a discovery has been made of lead and. zinc and we are told to-day -in fact I have the figures here-by those interested in the enterprise that they have already blocked out 43,000,000 tons of these valuable minerals, possessing a value of $22 a ton. Here we are the centre of a mining industry producing some of the richest ores known to mineral science-which attract high salaried men of the most expert class, which brings skilled metallurgists and engineers who are the most advanced in their knowledge of the development of our ores-and yet we find these ores being carried miles away from where they are mined, creating new centres of industry elsewhere because we have not the water-power or electric power with which to treat them. That is the situation which exists in our northern country to-day. We up there are in favour of this project as it stands because we look upon it as our only salvation, if we are ever to establish industries in addition to those of farming and mining. At the present moment in the district of Sudbury we have developed all the available water-power, amounting to some 37,500 horsepower, which is being used by the nickel industry and by the pulp and paper industry, and we have practically exhausted all the electric power procurable. But what we lack can be made up by the construction of the Georgian bay ship canal. It would also help to solve our coal problem. Ships on the great lakes could carry grain to the maritime provinces, and bring back Nova Scotia coal at a rate that would make its transportation possible, and thus help a great deal to develop our fuel problem.
I have not entered into a discussion of the legal phase of the question, I leave that to those who are better posted on that aspect of the matter than I am. But I want to make it clear to hon. gentlemen that the people of northern Ontario, the red-blooded pioneers who have helped to develop that northern country, have their eyes focused on this question. This is a great national undertaking which has been promised to us by each succeeding government. I remember hearing Sir Wilfrid Laurier state in the city of Montreal many years ago, that when once the Grand Trunk Pacific had been completed the next great national undertaking upon which this country would have to embark would be the construction of the Georgian bay ship canal. Nothing has transpired, except perhaps the desire of certain groups to secure possession of these water-powers, which should be allowed to interfere with the granting of this charter and the undertaking and completion of a great national project.
On Mr. Ross (Kingston) and Mr. Heaps rising to speak at the same moment:


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member for
Kingston. I wish to state out of courtesy to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), that I have before me a long list of speakers and that I am following the old rule of alternating between the speakers of different parties or groups in the House.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: At the outset let me assure the last speaker, the good people of northern Ontario, and all others who are interested in the Georgian bay canal, that I for one have no objection to its construction. So far as I am concerned I am in great sympathy with all my hon. friend has said concerning neiw or northern Ontario. We all recognise the vast resources of that great country, and we in the older parts of the province would be the last people in the world to place any obstacle in the way of its development.
One would be very foolish at this stage of our civilization to deny the importance of canalization, or to deny that water-borne transportation is not the cheapest means of transportation at the present day. All the essential factors have demonstrated the truth of that proposition. Therefore I am interested in schemes of canalization in this country, but I am also interested in seeing that the development shall proceed along proper lines.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
In regard to the present scheme, I wish to say that there are three principal questions to be discussed: first, the attitude of the government or the state towards canalization: second, the importance of the power factor: third, the legal aspect of the case. The first and very important question, that of the attitude of the government towards the canalization of any or all sections of the country is an interesting one. History has proven that very rarely has any country handed over to private corporations or private companies the development of its canal system. Canal systems existed in the days of the Pharaohs and even before that time. Ever since 7000 B.C. we have evidence of the existence of canal systems. There was the canal of Babylon, built about 1700 B.C. and renewed by Nebuchadnezzar in 600 B.C. The present Suez canal had1 a predecessor which lasted from 600 B.C. down to 760 A.D The Romans built canals and I want to point out the fact that all ancient systems of canals were state built and state maintained. Coming down now to European systems we find that the Dutch built the great Amsterdam canal, in fact the whole of Holland is a network of canals comprising some 2,408 miles. These canals are all built and maintained by the state and no tolls are collected. Belgium, perhaps, has reached the highest state of perfection in canal development. She has seven or eight very important canals with a total length of 1,346 miles. All these canals are state owned and state maintained and are free of tolls. France has 3,030 miles of canals of which 2,860 are state owned and free of all tolls. In fact no tolls have been collected in that country since 1888. Germany has had a canal system since 1700. She has connected all her commercially stategic points by canals, but the fact is important that they have been built by the state and1 are free of tolls to the public. It is well known that German industrial life owes its great importance and development to the splendid system of canalization that exists in that country, and yet, not satisfied with that, Germany has developed a splendid system of canals for purely military purposes.
Russia under Peter the Great started her canal system connecting St. Petersburg with the Caspian sea, with the Artie sea, and in all cases these canals are state-owned, state-maintained and free from tolls. Austria-Hungary had 1,700 miles of a state-owned canal system. Going through this historical section of canal development we come to Great Britain and we find she is the only country with privately-owned canals. The railways own one-third of her canal systems. There is this significant

fact that Great Britain was not so intensely interested as other countries were in building canals. The Thames and the Severn have a great watershed and this supply of water gave these rivers freer means of navigation than we find in other countries. As a matter of fact canals built by Great Britain have not done so much towards developing industrial life as have canals in ' other countries. The greatest canal in Great Britain is the Manchester ship canal and it really had its beginning in a privately-owned canal. Its beginning was due to the fact that the Duke of Bridgewater wanted to connect his collieries with Manchester, and from that beginning the local people became interested in building a ship canal with the idea of connecting Manchester with the coast, and avoiding the obstructions at Liverpool, dues and so on. It was due more to the interest of those local people, large interests around Manchester, Salford and other big cities in that district, that this canal has been the success it has. But the mere fact that many of these canals were undertaken by private companies is no argument for privately-owned canals, the private interests were driven to construct them, but many fell into the possession of the railway companies who put on such high tolls that the canal development and water transportation could not be made use of, and that the railroads received a greater amount of transportation than the canals, offsets any argument in this case in favour of the construction of canals by privately-owned companies.
This brings us from Europe to the United States, and their experience is very interesting. Shortly after the war of the American Revolution there arose a movement to connect New' York with the great lakes. That began when twyo private companies were formed, one to build a canal to connect with lake Champlain and the other to build a canal to connect with lake Erie. The company that was to build a canal to connect with lake Champlain failed. The other company built about six miles of internal canals and that was as far as it went until a commission, with Governor Clinton at its head, was appointed by the state of New York. This commission kept at work for many years until finally the Erie canal was built from Buffalo to New York. We are told that on the opening of that canal a great celebration was held over the arrival at New York of the first boat from Buffalo. A famous picture called the Marriage of Waters has been painted of that event. Two bottles of water were taken from lake Erie and one was emptied into the

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Atlantic at Sandy Hook. At that celebration some very enthusiastic United States citizen conceived the idea of collecting water from rivers and navigable streams all over the world and these were also brought there and emptied. What I want to point out in connection with this historical section is the fact that in nearly all these cases the canals were built by the state, state-owned, state-maintained and free from tolls. So far as I know and can read, the only privately-owned ones in America have been failures. The Delaware and Hudson Company in the early days built a canal 108 miles long, but that canal has gone into the scrap heap. Those canals that have remained, that have been in any way a success, have been state-owned, state- maintained and free from tolls.
Let us judge the application for this charter by that historical fact. This is a company which wants to build a canal which, if built, will no doubt be of great benefit to this country, will help to develop it, will help in transportation in every way; but this company is going back to the old system of tolls, and1 T can assure the House that this system, in competition with railway transportation, will be a failure just as the canals about Liverpool have been.


Mr. McPHERSON:: Does the hon. member know of any canal in the United States, England, Belgium or Germany that was developing power at the same time?


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not know. I
have divided my remarks into three subjects and I am coming to the subject of power. Canalization is the important factor. If canalization is not an important factor, then power is the only factor and I will deal with that as my second subject. I want to point out that if this canal is built to be used for transportation purposes and tolls are charged, it will be a failure.
I come to the second point which is that of power. I have been asked: Do I know of any canal that has been built combining power development with water transportation? I say no and I do not know where there ever was such a situation as will arise in this case. I do not think the power development on this Georgian bay canal will enable the canal to be completed. It was pointed out in this House to-day that the scheme in the past was a failure because government guarantees were not behind it. What is behind this is the power scheme, the question of deriving revenue from the power development, and before I am through with this second section I want to show that this will also hardly be possible.
Coming to the second factor in the granting of this charter, the development of power: .This is a very pertinent question to the province of Ontario. It affects the people and the municipalities of Ontario in a very peculiar way. About the year 1900 the people of Ontario were seized with the great possibilities of the development of their industrial life. We had, as the last speaker said, great natural resources in mining, forestry and agriculture, but the one drawback to the development of these was the fuel situation. We felt that we were prevented from attaining our ideal through want of fuel. Looking for a solution of this difficulty, the citizens in various parts of the provinces began to study the possibilities of power on our many rivers, principally on the Niagara river. The possible replacement of power for fuel which we had to bring into this country appealed very strongly to the citizens of Toronto. I am in perfect accord with the last speaker that if by this means we can bring 'in fuel, then we are all willing to assist in the best possible way to supply it. From 1900 events quickly followed in the development of the scheme of power to replace fuel. In 1900 a committee of the Toronto board of trade made a report on the subject of hydro-electric power from the Niagara river. The large towns and cities, even the rural municipalities, quickly became imbued with the desire to reach some solution of the question and to bring about an increase in power. The matter became the subject of meetings, the subject of press comments and reference on the hustings, but no means of action was possible. No matter how much these citizens of Ontario would talk on this question, or how much it was discussed in the public press, there was no way of taking action to institute such a scheme, until in 1903 .the legislature of Ontario passed an act providing means for 'the appointment of a commission to interest itself in the scheme and to harmonize the different ideas of the municipalities. The plan was to investigate the question of supply and distribution of hydroelectric power, and such municipalities as desired could form themselves into groups and take the matter up. The first commission was formed by the municipalities of Toronto, London, Brantford, Stratford, Woodstock, Ingersoll and Guelph, known as the Ontario Power Commission. Its report gave data on the resources of power from coal, gas, oil and water. In 1906 this report was published, but before the information it contained became very generally known (throughout the province, action had already been taken, because in that same year, 1906, the legislature of Ontario

Georgian Bay Canal Company
passed an act for the creation of the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario. At first this commission was to receive appeals and requests from the different municipalities, but it soon became no longer a board of harmony. The demand became so great that it became a board of go-getters of power of Ontario. It became a central body representative of the municipality and acting on their behalf. In 1908 this commission made its first purchase of power-100,000 horsepower-from the Ontario Power Company of Niagara. The commission then began its first active work in the transmission of this power, and I would like now to refer to the efforts of the commission, first to solve the fuel problem, second to make available a supply of power, and third to transmit that power to the people of Ontario.
In 1910 the company started to distribute this power, having completed its transmission line, and still the demand grew. In 1915 that 100,000 horse-power was exhausted. In 1915 and 1916 it had to purchase an additional supply of 50,000 horse-power from the Ontario Power Company, and 25,000 horse-power from the Toronto Power Company. A new stage in its growth was now reached, when the supply from the privately owned companies failed or became exhausted. In 1917 the hydro-electric commission had to purchase the Ontario Power company, and in 1919 it increased the output from 160,000 horse-power to 200,000 horse-power. In 1920 the commission purchased the Toronto Power Company with its output of 125,000 horse-power. And so, with lightning speed, this commission has gone on from growth to growth, and almost every morning, in the words of a famous British statesman, one had to inquire what new development had taken place. Its last and greatest development, when all power from privately owned companies and from all possible rivers which were open to them were exhausted, was the Queenston-Chippawa proposition, which has developed 600,000 horse-power on the Niagara river. This was a scheme practically of turning a river and making it run in the opposite direction; because our allowance- of power on t'he Niagara was exhausted. In addition to this, the commission has generated power on the Severn, at Wasdell's and the Eugenia falls and practically surrounded two-thirds of this province with its power scheme. In addition to that, they have taken all the power they could gather from privately owned plants on the Ottawa, the Rideau, in the Muskoka district, the St. Lawrence, and the Nipissing, and distributed it to the municipalities.

I now wish to give a few figures to further show the usefulness and service of this great commission. In 1910 the commission distributed 1,000 horse-power to a number of municipalities in Ontario. In 1914 they had supplied 77,000 horse-power, in 1920, 356,000 horse-power, and in 1923, 050,000 horse-power, and to-day it supplies to the people of Ontario, 900,000 horse-power. The demand has come from factories, from farms, Lor lighting for the streets, for the roadways, from all parts and all sections of this country. The transmission line of this commission extends over 3,000 miles. The distribution of power varies from one mile to 250 miles, the greatest distance of distribution which is accomplished by the transmission of Niagara power to the city of Windsor. The commission is under contract to develop power at cost to the municipalities, which in turn distribute to its citizens at cost. In this way the hydroelectric commission is supplying 226 municipalities in the province of Ontario. The total assets of the commission amout to 1250,000,000, and it supplies a population of 1,000,000. In the face of these facts, is there any reason for the granting of a charter to a private company for the development of power on the Georgian bay canal? My argument is this:	That the citizens of Ontario have taken upon themselves the development of this great hydro-electric power, its assets are all owned by the municipalities and the province of Ontario; that it was undertaken at a time when there was a great need, a great hunger for power in this province; that at this very day that hunger has not been satisfied by any means, and that the commission is ready to develop on the Ottawa, on the St. Lawrence or on any other river where power is available if it is not checked and obstructed by legislation of this kind. Undoubtedly, by extending this charter the Dominion government would be doing a grave injustice to the people of Ontario and their public-owned hydro-electric undertaking.
The province of Ontario or the province of Quebec must supply the demand for power which would be available but for this charter, and consequently by renewing it we are virtually enabling a private company to enter into competition with or obstruct a people-owned scheme of hydro-electric power. It has been suggested to-day that Ontario and Quebec could not cooperate in this matter because while Ontario has developed a public-owned power system, the sister province has encouraged privately-owned projects for the generation of power. I cannot see that this of itself is any serious objection. I have no doubt that the two provinces can reach a

Georgian Bay Canal Company
caramon, agreement for the development of the power on the Ottawa river. Certainly there is not the slightest excuse for leaving this development in the hands of a private company that in the course of 33 years has made no attempt to cater to the transportation needs of the people of Ontario and Quebec. Had this company made any effort to serve the people along this line there might be some reason for renewing the 'charter. The ostensible purpose of the charter is to 'build a canal, but nothing having been done in this direction since the granting of the charter, it is not unreasonable to assume that the promoters of the bill are more concerned now with the power features of the project. Once the charter is renewed they will be placed in a position to compete with a publidly-owned system in which the people of Ontario have invested two hundred and fifty million dollars, and which is serving over a million of the population of the province with lig'ht and power. Obviously it would be most unfair to submit that undertaking to such obstruction.
I have tried to show that canal development of the world has been altogether along the lines of state ownership. This of itself is a further argument against granting a renewal of the charter rights of the company to construct a canal, which undoubtedly would in any event be merely incidental to the development of power along the course of the canal, and, as I have already said, this would be grossly unfair to the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario, which is ready and willing to still further serve the needs of the people in the way of power and light. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that it would be a great mistake to put that publicly-owned scheme in competition with a private company by granting a renewal of this charter.
I think it will be generally agreed that in the past we have made mistakes in our transportation undertakings, 'both water and rail, and in the development of our harbours and rivers. I think the day is at hand when the government should appoint a permanent board of engineers to survey the whole dominion and report from time to time as to what harbours and rivers should be developed, and what canals should be built in the public interest. In a word, we should lay down a definite policy in dealing with our canals, railways, harbours and rivers, so that a system economical and efficient might be built up. We all know that the United States made many mistakes in canal building. I need only refer to one with which we are all more or less familiar-the Erie canal. On its completion there came demands for lateral and other canals, many of which were not needed, and,
although they were undertaken, most of them became failures. We do not want to repeat our neighbour's mistakes. In support of my proposal that the government' should appoint a board of engineers to deal with our canal and cognate problems, I may point to the board constituted by the government to report on the feasibility of the deepening of the St. Lawrence river. The board that I suggest the government should appoint could deal with our system of canals, and incidentally they could investigate the water-powers available in connection with any canalization projects, and report their findings to the government, which in turn, of course, would place them on the table of the House for the information of members.
I think we are at a stage of our national development that would warrant perhaps further canalization, but lest we repeat our Welland canal mistake, I think we should be guided by expert advice. I should like to have some report from a strong board of engineers on the feasibility this canal and whether within say, three, six or nine years it will be constructed and in operation. I know no other country except China that has waited so long for a canal. China started a canal to connect her capital with the coast, but it was not completed for 600' years. If we are to trust to the company which is asking for a renewal of this charter, I fear even the Chinese record will be broken. Before the charter is renewed the government should come to the House and say, "We are satisfied and will take the responsibility of recommending its renewal."
Not being a lawyer, I shall not deal with the legal question, but the government must assume the responsibility of assuring this House that they are ready to meet the case of the province of Ontario. Very strong statements have been made by Premier Ferguson that provincial power rights in the Ottawa river will be upheld in the courts. Therefore, hon. members of this House who come from all over the dominion look to the government for advice. The government should be our advisers as to how we should vote-or at least, they should give us some advice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Edward Ross: I am waiting to
see if the government will give us any advice.


Mr. MALCOLM:: Will you take it?


Arthur Edward Ross: In the past their
advice has been ninety per cent wrong, but in this instance they might perhaps be correct, and I would be able to support them. They
-COMMONS
Georgian Bay Canal Company
certainly should make an effort to give us advice, or should seek some sound legal opinion, to guide members from all parts of the Dominion in their votes on this very important question.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: I
trust the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) will not charge me with indulging in reprehensible tactics if I venture to discuss the subject before the House. I am a comparatively new member and I still have a great deal to learn with respect to matters of rule and procedure, but it seems to me a somewhat unusual situation to have such an important measure as this introduced into this House, a measure involving so many varied interests, without receiving any information from the sponsor of the bill as to what its purpose is. I had hoped when the bill was introduced by the senior hon. member for Ottawa that we might have -been given some information as to what is contained in the measure itself. Personally, not being a member of the legal profession, I find it very difficult indeed to fathom the provisions of the bill as presented to the House. It has been contended by those in favour of the bill-as a matter of fact, so far, only one hon. member has spoken in support of it- that if it passes the House the people of northern Ontario will have the canal built for them forthwith. I presume that if I had been a member of this House thirty years ago, listening to the original promoters of this undertaking, I should have heard them say exactly the same thing as was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre). That is always the view put forward in this House -by promoters seeking charters, and I for one ami opposed to this parliament giving charters of this kind, particularly where so much is involved as is the case in the bill now before us. It is almost a third of a century since the charter was originally granted, and on thirteen occasions it has been renewed. I cannot therefore see the force of the argument advanced by the sponsor of the -bill for British fair play in allowing the bill to go before the special committee previous to its discussion in this House. It seems to me that the promotors have had a good deal of British fair play in having this charter renewed thirteen or fourteen times, and now that they come to the House for another renewal I for one do not feel disposed to grant it unless good reasons can be advanced for so doing. So far we have had no reasons at all, except such as were given this afternoon in the address of the hon. member for Nipissing, an address which can be answered in a very few moments. That 
hon. gentleman dealt almost exclusively with the construction of the canal. If these people who are seeking a renewal of the charter would confine the charter solely to the building of the Georgian bay canal, I do not think they would experience that difficulty in getting the bill through the House which they are having at the present time, notwithstanding the fact that there are many members of this House who are committed to the principle of having canals owned and operated by -the government rather than by private interests. I think it is almost too late in the day for people to ask this House to give [DOT]them the right to levy tolls on ships which are to pass through canals built in this Dominion. Allowing private companies to develop such public utilities is entirely contrary to the past policy of governments of whatever party they may be composed. To me, however, the main principle involved in this bill, and which I feel bound to oppose, is the granting to a private corporation the right to own and control almost one and a quarter million horse-power on the Ottawa river. When the charter was originally granted there was no idea then of the value of electrical energy, but since then a tremendous development in this direction has taken place. Science has made enormous strides, so that what was impossible only five or ten years ago is practicable to-day. For instance, there was a time when long distance transmission as we now have it was almost impossible. To-day we transmit electrical energy over a distance of 100 miles with comparatively little loss in energy. I find in to-day's newspaper a small item which in my opinion has considerable significance in relation to this particular charter. I believe that these falls are situated about 300 miles from the large centres of population in Ontario. At present it would be almost impossible from an engineering standpoint to transmit that electrical energy over that distance, -but, as I say, science is making rapid progress, and I myself expect to see in the next few years such an evolution in electrical engineering as will render possible the transmission of power from Georgian bay to the city of Toronto. In this morning's Ottawa Citizen I find this despatch by the Canadian Press:
Toronto, Ont. March 5.-A New York despatch to the Mail and Empire says: A new invention which makes possible the economical transmission of power from distant waterfalls and will soon permit scattered districts and farms, almost anywhere in the country to be supplied with power, was announced to-day by W. S. Rugg, vice-president in charge of engineering of the Westingliouse Electric and Manufacturing Company. Mr. Rugg said the

Georgian Day Canal Company
invention by Frank G. Baum, hydro-electrical engineer, of San Francisco, was a complete solution of the problem of economical transmission of power over long distances.
With the imminent solution of the problem of transmitting electrical energy over long distances one can visualize the tremendous importance of the water-powers on the Ottawa river, when.there is a million and a quarter horse-power there to be developed. Personally I am strongly opposed to this bill, particularly now when I find that the people of Ontario are themselves prepared to proceed with the development of this horsepower if they have an opportunity of doing so.
It seems to me rather strange that there should be hon. gentlemen in this House from the province of Ontario who would rather trust their destinies to people who, on thirteen or fourteen different occasions, have failed them, than to the provincial government who have built and developed one of the finest hydro-electric enterprises to be found anywhere in the universe. If there is in Ontario to-day approximately 600,000 horse-power available for development, the first people who should have an opportunity of using that horse-power are the people of Ontario themselves, and this House of Commons at least should do nothing in this matter before the people of the province have been consulted.
This morning, along with other members, I received a circular from the Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company in which I was rather interested. Unlike many other hon, members, I had no lobbyists here to see me on this particular question and when I received the circular I was interested to know what they had to say about the development of the potential horse-power on the Ottawa river. Yet in a three-page circular sent out by the company not a word is said about this power development; the circular is confined to the canal. It is somewhat strange that they should so completely ignore the power aspect of this enterprise and emphasize the future activities of the canal. It is my candid opinion that even if the charter is granted the people of northern Ontario will never have a canal if they depend on this company. There is a question, however, as to whether they are going to get something if the charter is not granted and the power rights are handed over to the people of Ontario. Personally I believe the Dominion government to be fairly well committed on this point, and in that connection I wish to read one or two extracts from Hansard from a debate which took place last year. The House will remember that last
session the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) moved a resolution which read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, measures should be taken to regain for the use of the people the coal mines and water-powers which are now being exploited in the interest of private corporations rather than for the needs of the people.
The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) was very sympathetic to this resolution and so expressed himself in the following words:
The provincial governments, with the exception of the three prairie provinces, own and control their forest wealth. In my attempt to get uniformity of action I found a great deal of suspicion abroad in the minds of the provincial authorities, and I admit that the feeling is sometimes too prevalent that there is a desire on the part of the federal authorities to interfere with provincial rights.
The same thing would also apply to power rights, and the minister said further:
One of the first difficulties is that under the Act of Confederation those public utilities which are mentioned in the resolution remain under the control of the provincial government.
If the speech of the hon. gentleman is read through several references will be found to show that the control and practically the ownership of these water rights are absolutely under the jurisdiction of the provinces. Consequently when the question of the development of this water-power is considered, I do not think this House has the absolute right to give away something which is admitted by many to be entirely within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
To go a point further, I find that in Ontario the Hydro Electric Commission has developed approximately SOO.OOO horse-power at an approximate cost of $240,000,000, and I think that when the people of Ontario have shown so much initiative in this development and when they have spent so much money in developing this tremendous asset, in giving lower rates than can be obtained in any other part of the continent, this House should not lightly pass a bill giving a private company the right to develop almost an equal quantity of electrical energy. There is admittedly a shortage of power in Ontario; the provincial government wants more power developed. If we look at the record of the speeches made when a resolution dealing with the shortage of power in Ontario was introduced by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) and seconded by Mr. Maclean, who was then a member of the House, we will find further references by ministers of the crown to the right of Ontario to control and own whatever water-power may be developed in the province.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
I think we should have a pronouncement on this question by the government; I think the matter too important to put the responsibility on one private member. In view of their past statements I do not think the government should altogether leave the responsibility to the House; I think they should take a stand on this question and let us know their decision. When the people of the largest province in Canada are applying themselves to the development of their water-powers, [with all political parties united, I do not think this parliament can honestly give those powers away to any private corporation. Therefore I think the government should say where they stand on this question, and I hope they are in favour of giving to the people of Ontario that which belongs to them.
In the development of some of its publie-owned utilities Canada has one of its greatest assets. Just the other day in this House the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell), in speaking on the budget, made a most pathetic plea on behalf of a private corporation, the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, and at this juncture I would like to say a few words in connection with what was then said. His plea was that this poor company which is conferring such vast benefits iipon the people of Montreal-and which incidentally earns such huge dividends-should be relieved of the payment of income tax amounting to approximately $750,000 yearly. In the remarks of the hon. member we find the difference between those who favour public ownership and those who believe in private ownership. The hon. member who spoke for the company probably thought the company could pay larger dividends if this income tax were not paid, as in the case of a publicly owned utility. We find that in Ontario they give a rate as low as can be found in the world, and this is in my opinion one of the greatest assets to our manufacturers. In Ontario I believe electrical energy can be bought for industrial purposes at three-quarters of a cent per kilowatt hour, while in the city of Winnipeg under our municipally-owned hydro-electric system electrical energy is sold for industrial purposes for as little as two-fifths of a cent per kilowatt hour. That is almost below the cost of production, but with the large off-peak load which exists there, we have been able to make that tremendous concession to consumers of large blocks of electrical energy. The other night the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) stated that the electrical heating of our homes would soon become possible through the further development of electrical energy. He 
was not looking very far ahead, because I can tell the House that at the present time electric heating is being done in the city of Winnipeg to a very large extent. I desire to mention these facts, Mr. Speaker, because it shows the great potential value of the power development with which the House is dealing at present. In Winnipeg we have a central heating system owned and controlled 'by the city, which was put in as an adjunct to a stand-by plant which is necessary to our hydro-electric system. During certain months of the year this central heating system does not consume one ounce of coal; the off-peak electric power is developed into steam through electrically heated boilers and by a high pressure system the steam is put through the mains and the larger portion of the business section of Winnipeg is heated in that way. During probably two or three months of the year, therefore, no coal at all is used to heat the central business portion of Winnipeg. Consequently the statement made here by the hon. member for Argenteuil that this is something not likely to happen in the years to come is met by the assertion that it is an accomplished fact so far as one city on this continent is concerned, and the example of that city will prdbably be copied by others. I am satisfied that before very long Toronto will establish a stand-by plant in connection with its own hydro-electric system, and when it does there is nothing more economical it can do than to combine that stand-by plant with a central heating system. We shall probably see in the near future a large portion of the central part of Toronto heated by the off-peak load of its hydro-electric system the same as is done in the city of Winnipeg.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, just before
recess I was dealing with a question that was raised by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) who had visualized the utilization of electrical energy for heating purposes. I had dealt for a few moments with the fact that in the city of Winnipeg that vision had already become a reality, and that we were now using electrical energy for the development of heat. During the recess I was asked by one or two hon. members to deal for a few moments longer with that particular matter, and without taking up too much of the time of the House, I wish, in

Georgian Bay Canal Company
order to satisfy the request made by the hon. gentlemen, to give a few more details in regard to that particular aspect.
In the development of any hydro-electric enterprise there is bound to be a large off-peak load which is like a by-product and is bound to go to waste. I do not think in the Dominion of Canada the average consumption over a twenty-four-hour period exceeds fifty per cent of the total quantity of electrical energy generated, the result being that there is a fifty per cent off-peak load that goes almost entirely to waste. It has always been a problem with electrical engineers how to utilize that waste in hydro-electric development1, and in the city of Winnipeg we have come as close as any other city to the utilization of that off-peak load or the by-product of hydro-electric development.
That has been effected in this way. In Winnipeg we were bound by circumstances to erect a stand-by plant for our hydro-electric system. That stand-by plant became necessary, as I believe it will become necessary in all large centres where large quantities of electrical energy are used, owing to the fact that at certain periods of the year cyclonic storms would blow down the transmission lines or there would be a stoppage from other causes, with the result that there would be very little or no hydro-electric energy obtainable in the city to carry on essential public utilities and works in factories such as packing plants and so forth. Hospitals would probably be without electrical energy; elevators in hospitals would be unable to run and so on, and the commercial life of the city would be completely demoralized for the time being. With the creation of a stand-by or auxiliary plant, as some people call it, we are able to give to a large section of the users of hydro-electric energy in Winnipeg a guaranteed twenty-four-hour continuous service.
The erection of such a stand-by plant involves a very large capital outlay as well as a large annual outlay for upkeep. One of the methods used to keep down that expenditure was the creation of a joint utility by combining with the stand-by plant a central heating system whereby the boilers, which are kept in readiness to generate electricity in case of emergency, can be utilized for heating purposes. What we do now is to generate heat through these boilers in the winter time; but in addition to that we have certain electric boilers, which are made in Canada, which were made by Canadian engineers, and the off-peak power which is on tap for many months in the year and for many hours each day finds its way into these 32649-61
electrical boilers. These boilers, which have a capacity of 750 horse-power and are not much larger than one of the desks in this chamber, generate steam which is sold in exactly the same way as steam that is produced by the use of coal. That brings in a large revenue to the city by using hydroelectric eneigy which otherwise would go to waste.
We have partly solved another problem which I believe is seeking solution in many other parts of the Dominion. More than one hundred of the largest buildings in the centre of Winnipeg are now supplied with heat from a central heating plant, and in the milder winter weather such as we have at the present time and such as they had in Winnipeg during February, not one ounce of coal is used for the creation of heat. The result is that in months where in other cities they have vast volumes of smoke coming out of their chimneys, Winnipeg is almost a smokeless city so that the atmosphere there possesses advantages that are not possessed by other cities. Moreover users of electrical energy in Winnipeg who find it essential to have a twenty-four-hour continuous service receive that by the creation of the stand-by plant which was put into operation, I believe, in 1924. I have endeavoured to make these one or two points clear for the bnefit of hon. members who asked me the question during the recess; otherwise, I had no intention of dealing again with the matter.
Coming back to the direct question of the bill before the House, another objection I have to it is the fact that if the charter is granted to the people who are seeking it there will be established in Ontario something which I believe will not be to the advantage of that province. It would mean for the province a dual system of private ownership and public ownership. Whilst I know that many hon. members will say that competition is a good thing, I believe an monopolies in certain things. I think the control of electric energy should be a monopoly and already in Ontario, 'the hydro-electric commission have a monopoly practically of this service which they give to the people. I think it would therefore be unfair of parliament to establish another system to enter into competition to a certain extent with the already publicly-owned utility of the province of Ontario. I have no doubt in my own mind that such a corporation should not come into competition, although I have an idea that if the power were granted to them they might hold up this charter and try to bargain with someone who would give them a good price for it. What is



Georgian Bay Canal Company
likely to be the result if a charter is granted? I understand that they could tap a region already not tapped by the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission. If they put into operation a hydro-electric system in the province, and then started supplying the people of those areas with electric light and power, I am satisfied that they would have to charge a much larger price than is charged to the people who use the energy of the publicly-owned utility of Ontario.
The 'hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre), When speaking this afternoon, said the canal system would have to be carried by profits of the power operation. I noted that statement when he made it, and I think what he meant was that the promoters of the bill would charge the users of electric energy in the area they would serve, a much larger price than they would ordinarily charge, and would be able to put the canal system into operation by tfhe profits they would make out of the hydro-electric system. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is a very false position for any one in this House to fake. There is no canal system in this country which is now being paid for by a.ny auxiliary company. There are no canal tolls in effect at the present time, and it would be a mistake for us to give a company the right, as we would be doing under this charter, to charge more for electric liigjht and power in order that it might be able to subsidize a canal system which it has in contemplation.
Discussing the question of rates brings me again to the point raised by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell) the other night when he was speaking about rates. I think I asked a question in reference to the rates as between a privately-owned corporation and a publicly-owned utility, and he was good enough to reply by quoting from the annual statement of the company in which they said that t)he average retail rate in the city of Montreal was three and a half cents a kilowatt hour. I think that statement will be found in Hansard. If we take the rate charged in other cities where they (have hydro-electric enterprises under public ownership, we see quite a difference. The average retail rate charged in the city of Winnipeg, with which I am familiar, would not be more than two cents a kilowatt hour. Making all allowances,
I think the rates charged in Montreal are fully fifty per cent higher than those charged in Winnipeg. I believe, without having before me the actual facts, that the same ratio would apply to Toronto and other large cities. In that same connection, the hon. member was urging that the company known as the 
Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company should be relieved of its annual income tax payment, amounting to slightly over three quarters of a million dollars; that it was an injustice to the company, and that they ought to be relieved of the payment, on the ground that a publicly-owned utility is not required to pay income tax to the national exchequer. The people of the province of Quebec have a simple way of equalizing matters; all they have to do is to own the utilities, as they do in Ontario; then they will have no tax to pay. That is one way of overcoming the difficulty, if they wish to do it. I do not think they should penalize a public utility because in Quebec they have private ownership. In this particular regard I want to quote a very brief synopsis of the statement made in the annual report of the company. I am quoting from the Financial Times of January 28th, and hon. members will see in what poor circumstances this particular company as. The report says:
Gross revenue from operations for the year 1926, is $18,907,382, compared with $18,346,806 for the year 1925, and $17,394,091 for the year 1924. A favorable feature is a reduction in operating expenses and taxes during the year.
My hon. friend from St. Antoine is not satisfied with the ordinary tax reduction, but he is willing to give them about three-quarters of a million in addition. *
The former being down at $7,109,918 from $7,349,243, and the latter down at $1,213,028 from $1,274,655, while appropriation for depreciation is up at $1,890,738 from $1,834,880.
But that is not all. I want to give the House a few more figures.
Net revenue shows a gain of over $800,000, at $8,693,688 as compared with $7,890,026. Respecting the issue during the year of $30,000,000 of bonds is an increase in fixed charges to $1,611,121 from $1,213,650.
And I think we know what these figures are. They are a melon cut for the shareholders.
Leaving net earnings available for dividends on the 2,041,837 shares of capital stock outstanding at $7,082,567, or the equivalent of $3.47 a share; this compares with net earnings of $6,676,376 for the year 1925, equal to 10.32 per cent, (or $3.44 per share figured on the basis of the recent 3 for 1 split).
I think we all have an idea what is meant by the three for one split, and this corporation split their shares three for one.
Dividends absorbed the sum of $5,135,041 as compared with $5,119,091 in 1925, and surplus for the year at $1,869,482, compares with $1,537,285.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Now, Mr. Speaker, a public-owned utility does not publish balance sheets of this character, it does not split up shares three to one. Instead of paying cash dividends out of surpluses, the public-owned utility gives its customers reduced rates and better service. Therefore the people of Toronto and Winnipeg and other large centres where these publicly-owned utilities are operating get the benefit of rates which are about fifty per cent lower than those prevailing in, say, Montreal, and probably in other cities throughout the province of Quebec. But the communities where public-owned utilities are operating have a further advantage. Probably there is not a city on the North American continent where on the basis of population as much electricity is used as in Winnipeg. There we try to bring it into the homes of all the people. We try to make the lot of the housewife easier, and in the average household in Winnipeg you will find an electric stove and other equipment, all of which lightens the work of the housewife and improves the conditions of the home. I can say of my own knowledge that private ownership never displayed the initiative that is so conspicuous Tinder public ownership in the city of Winnipeg.
I have another objection to the bill. As a layman, I take it that the bill gives to the company a perpetual franchise. I believe there is a clause somewhere, perhaps in the old bill, which gives to the government the right of expropriation. I have some idea of what expropriation proceedings are, and I can understand how7 much a private corporation would demand for surrendering a perpetual franchise; the amount required would be staggering. So I cannot for the life of me see why we should give to a private corporation these valuable privileges and at a subsequent period buy them back for millions and millions of dollars. Undoubtedly the safest course will be to see that the promoters do not get a renewal of this franchise, and thus save ourselves the expense of expropriating their franchise at a later period. But I am asked by those who are sponsoring this bill, "Why not send it to the committee and discuss it there?" I do not see the reasonableness of myself and others who are opposed to the bill being required to go before the committee with our objections. I believe it is the safer policy to express my opinion now on the floor of the house and show where I stand, rather than wTait until the bill comes back from the committee after having received its second reading.
In dealing with this question I think we ought to take into consideration, Sir, the fact 32649-61J	,
that the legislature of Ontario is to-day discussing this identical question and, according to newspapers, a resolution is to be framed in such a way as to meet the wishes of all parties there-the conservative party, the liberal party, the progressive party and the labour party. They will all unite on a resolution asking this parliament to preserve the rights which belong to the province. In view of this we ought to pause a long time before we do anything which would in any way infringe on the rights of Ontario and give to a private corporation something which really belongs to the people of that province.
It has been argued by those who are promoting -this bill that the province of Quebec may give the water-powers on the Ottawa river over to private ownership for development. Well, if the government of Quebec favours private ownership development, that is the business of the people of that province. On the other hand, if the people of Ontario want to develop their share of these water-powers under public ownership, then they ought to be given the opportunity of doing so as part of their hydro-electric system. I believe that within the Liberal party there are quite a number of members who are in favour of the principle of public ownership, particularly those from western Canada. It is only quite recently that at a convention the Liberal party in Manitoba went on record as being in favour of the public ownership and operation of water-powers. I hope the Liberal members representing Manitoba in this house will fbllow the lead of the provincial party convention and help to uphold the principle of public ownership of utilities not only in Manitoba but in Ontario, for after all what is good in the one province is good in the other. I oppose this bill mainly on the ground that it is a complete violation of the principles of public ownership; further, I oppose it because I believe that the people of Ontario are anxious to retain these water-powers in order to develop them in the interests of the whole province. I believe, Sir, that when the interests of a small group of capitalists-of men who are attempting to exploit the people of Ontario and their rights-are opposing the interests of the people of that province, I as a member of this house must decide in favour of the people of Ontario.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this House ought aa far as possible to conserve the rights of the people in the development of their natural resources, and when we find that Ontario, through its premier, through the members of its legislature, and through other authorities in a position to speak, has expressed in most

Georgian Bay Canal Company
emphatic terms that it would be a great injustice to the people of Ontario if we renewed this franchise, it seems to me that the only course open to us is to see that this bill is not allowed to pass. It has been before the house on fourteen different occasions, and for thirty-three years its promoters have enjoyed the privileges and rights which they now seek to have renewed, but during all that time they have done nothing to carry out the project for which in the first instance the charter was ostensibly granted them. Therefore, Sir, I think we shall be acting in the best interests of the people of Ontario by rejecting this bill1 and thus allowing the provincial authorities to develop their own natural resources.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon.
member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that it is highly desirable to have a full discussion of this measure before referring it to the committee. There are two questions involved in the renewal: first, the construction of what is called the Georgian bay canal, and second, the development of the water-power along the route, including the development of the power on the Ottawa river. I do not propose to discuss the various legal questions involved, nor to discuss the respective powers of the Dominion of Canada, on the one hand, and the provinces of Ontario and Quebec on the other. We have courts properly constituted and competent to decide questions of this sort. If Canada has no jurisdiction in the matter of granting this charter, then, I submit, Canada can do itself no harm in granting it. Let us assume that Canada has the power to grant it and let us endeavour to discuss the question from the point of view of the principles involved.
The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. La-pierre) made it quite clear, in my opinion, that the canal in question cannot be economically constructed or operated except in conjunction with the development of the water-power along the canal route. The two, in my opinion, ought not to be separated. But we should be careful to draw this distinction. The canal cannot be operated as a commercial undertaking without at the same time developing the water-power; but, on the other hand, it is possible to develop the water-power without building the canal. I think that distinction ought to be clearly kept in mind.
I listened with -a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). It might be prefer-

able that this whole scheme should be undertaken by the Dominion. I should be inclined personally to favour such a proposal, but I do not believe that such a scheme would be undertaken. Water-power, we are frequently told, is one of our greatest assets and it should be jealously guarded by the people of Canada. But it is not an asset until it is developed. If we have to choose, in the development of our water-power, between Dominion control and private enterprise, then I think the remarks of the hon. member for North Winnipeg are well founded. [DOT] But if it is not probable-and it does not seem to be probable-that the Dominion will undertake this project as a public ownership scheme, then I think we shall have to choose between two methods of water-power development: on the one hand, a scheme of water-power development that will bring with it cheap transportation and, on the other, a scheme that brings no transportation facilities at all. That point, I think, is worthy of the consideration of the House, and, personally, I should much prefer a scheme of water-power development that carries with it the possibilities of cheap transportation to a scheme that offers no transportation facilities at all.
I quite agree with the various speakers who have pointed out that great care must be taken by the House in transferring waterpower sites to private individuals or even to provinces. As I understand it, under the statutes that have been passed, relating to the Georgian bay canal, since the year 1894 when this company was incorporated, the rights of the public are very fully protected. I understand that the Dominion will have complete control over the construction and operation of the canal, over the levying of tolls, and over the sale of water-power. Furthermore, I understand that it is competent for the Dominion to take over the whole scheme at any time. I fully agree with other speakers that our great assets should be adequately safeguarded, and if there are not adequate safeguards provided in the present statutes relating to this corporation, then those safeguards should now be set up as a condition precedent to the renewal of the charter.
Those who are in favour of the Georgian bay canal project point out its many advantages not only to western Canada but to eastern and central Canada as well. The Georgian bay canal will establish a deep waterway from Montreal to Fort William and Port Arthur and it will be an all-Canadian deep waterway. Those who speak in its support say that it will industrialize the whole Ottawa valley. They say that it will increase the development of the port of Montreal and of

Groryian Bay Canal Company
all the cities on the lower St. Lawrence. The hon. member for Tort William (Mr. Manion) in his speech this afternoon emphasized the value of the St. Lawrence waterway. So far as I can see, all advantages which he pointed out as accruing from the St. Lawrence waterway scheme will flow from the Georgian bay canal undertaking. In addition the friends of the Georgian bay canal point out that it will provide cheap transportation from the maritime provinces as far west as Fort William. They argue that it will provide cheap transportation for Nova Scotia coal to Ontario, that it will open up the mining area of the latter province, and that it will enable ore to be carried cheaply to Cape Breton where the coal supply is situated.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: What guarantee
is there that the canal will be completed for navigation purposes?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am unable to answer
that question. Possibly those who sponsor the bill in this House will give some information in that regard. I am simply at this stage pointing out the advantages which those who favour the scheme suggest.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is there not lacking in
the bill itself that very guarantee that we should require, namely, that the canal will be completed?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: On that point I cannot
speak with authority. If the scheme has the advantages indicated, then it deserves the careful consideration of the House. Western Canada is particularly interested in the Georgian bay cana'l project and in this connection I may refer again to the remarks of the member for North Winnipeg. He spoke of the rights of Ontario and of Quebec. As I mentioned at the outset, I do not propose to discuss the legal rights of these two provinces as opposed to the rights of the Dominion at large. If this work is constructed as a canal scheme it will be a national water highway and western Canada will have as much Tight to it as will the provinces ol Ontario and Quebec. It will be a transportation scheme then as well as a power development scheme; to that extent western Canada will be as interested and as vitally concerned as will the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But would the hon.
gentleman say by whom the cost of the navigation scheme would be paid?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I think that has already
been indicated; it would be paid for by private enterprise and by tolls and by the sale of water-power. I think that is clear.


Edmond Antoine Lapierre: It would not cost the
nation one dollar.


Mr. McMILLAN :: Under proper safeguards


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Western Canada is vitally interested in transportation costs. I am told that the Georgian Bay canal route will be shorter than the present all-water route via lake Erie and the St. Lawrence river by almost 300 miles; I am told that it will be shorter in time by 37 hours, and that it will result in a reduction in freight rates of from three to five cents per bushel. Whether or not that is true, and whether or not the construction of the canal will bring those results I cannot say, but if those results are to be obtained western Canada is vitally interested in seeing that the project gets a fair chance. There is also another consideration. At present a great deal of our grain is diverted at Buffalo, and goes down the Erie canal to American ports. If the Georgian Bay canal scheme is a success all of that wheat will go direct through Canada, through the port of Montreal. I think that consideration should be kept in mind.
Those are the advantages which the friends of the proposal bring forward for the consideration of the House. Whether or not the canal will bring about the various results suggested is a different question, and I think the committee will be entitled to receive full particulars on that point. WTstern Canada, so far as her farmers are concerned, is very sure of her economic position. The farmer of western Canada knows very we'll that the price of what he has to sell, his exportable grain surplus and the like, is fixed by world conditions.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would like to ask the
hon. gentleman if he can quote a single expression of opinion by anyone representing the farmers of western Canada in favour of this project?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Just allow me to finish
my argument, and then repeat your question if you think it in point at that time. The farmer of western Canada realizes that the sale price of what he has to sell cannot be changed by any act of this Dominion; no tariff legislation and no fiscal policy which may be adopted by Canada can increase by one farthing the price of what the farmer has to sell. Therefore the farmer appreciates that if he is to increase his very narrow margin of profit he must do so in one of two ways; he must either have the cost of what he has to buy reduced or he must have his transportation costs reduced; upon these two issues western Canada presents a united front. This Georgian bay canal project does suggest the possibility of a decrease in transportation costs.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
We in western Canada fought for a long time for the restoration of our Crowsnest pass railway rates and were finally able to have those rates guaranteed by statute. We have strenuously opposed, and will continue to oppose, any effort to remove that statutory protection which we now possess. So I repeat that western Canada is vitally interested in any project giving promise of a reduction in transportation costs. Those who favour this proposal do suggest that there will be a material advantage to western Canada in the. construction of this canal, and, if that is so, I think western Canada would be in favour of a thorough investigation of this proposed measure. I think I speak for a large portion of western Canada in urging that this measure be sent to committee in order that the most full and favourable consideration be given to it.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: I would like to ask the
hou. gentleman a question. Why is it that he now proposes to support the Georgian bay canal, which will become a competitor of the Hudson Bay railway?
Mr. THOIteON: I do not think that, question deserves an answer.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: In regard
to the question asked by the last speaker, I would suggest that if there are other wavs than (he Georgian bay canal and the Hudson Bay railway by which we can reduce our transportation rates from central Canada to the ocean w* want to know about them and to look into them. I agree with the last speaker that this bill should go to committee to be thoroughly discussed; it is of great interest to all of Canada, and- particularly to western Canada. One of my hon. friends opposite asked what guarantee we have. I say we should send the bill to committee and put cur guarantees in it there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was just asking,
m view of the clauses of the bill itself, whether there was any guarantee that this work would be completed.


John Gordon Ross: I do not know
what guarantees there are in this bill, but when it goes to committee it can there be amended and have proper safeguards placed in it. If the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have certain rights in t he water-powers of navigable streams in Canada, those rights should be safeguarded, but I believe that the advantage of any canalization of navigable streams in Canada ehou'd be kept for the Dominion as a whole. My hon. friend has said that if the canal is built it will do certain things, and hon. gentlemen opposite ask,

"Will they build the canal?" Well, when the bill goes into committee, insert your guarantees and safeguards and provide that if the canal is not built the charter becomes absolutely null and void. My friend has said that this charter has been before the House on fourteen different occasions. They have said that the canal could have been- proceeded with. I say that the government of the Dominion never allowed the company to go ahead with the construction of the Georgian bay canal?


Robert James Manion: Why?


John Gordon Ross: Because they
never approved of the plans put in by the company, and those plans were put in years ago.


Robert James Manion: How many years ago?


John Gordon Ross: I believe the
first were filed in 1907. In the first place the charter was for a canal of nine feet. Then it was raised in succession to twelve feet, eighteen feet, twenty feet and twenty-two feet, and to-day they are asking for a canal of twenty-four feet. The last plans I believe are with the department but have not yet been o.k.'d by it. Therefore a company could not go ahead and construct the canal until its plans have been o.k.'d by the government. Now my -hon. friend (Mr. Thorson) has said that some 300 miles will be cut off the voyage of a ship to Port Arthur and Fort William by the construction of this canal. I believe that is correct. And as freight rates are based to a great extent on the time it takes to carry freight from one point to the other, that fact would naturally make a large saving in the cost of transporting commodities from central or middle western Canada to the ocean ports.
In connection with this point may I read a paragraph from a report issued by the United States Department of Commerce, entitled Great Lakes to Ocean Waterways. The paragraph in question is to this effect:
For vessel costs a 7,600-ton, dead weight, oilburning, cargo vessel may be taken for illustrative purposes. The fixed charges and operating costs of such a vessel are approximately $700 a day.
Now if the construction of the Georgian bay canal will cut off thirty-six hours between Montreal and Fort William on the return trip that means 72 hours or three days, or $2,100 on a cargo ship of 7,000 tons, which saving in time will materially reduce the freight rates.
I believe that we should have a full discussion at the present stage of the bill, a full discussion in committee, and a full discussion after the bill gets back to the House,

Georgian Bay Canal Company
because if this canal is built it will mean a great deal to the whole of Canada. As my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manioc) said this afternoon there would be some eighteen states in the adjoining republic affected by it. The report from which I have quoted gives the names of those states, and as a matter of fact I believe there are more than eighteen of the central and western states in the country to the south affected.
In going through the report referred to I found that taking thirty-four of the export commodities and thirty-four of the import commodities of the United States, and if there were a great lakes to ocean waterway large enough to accommodate ships of from six to seven thousand tons, forty-four per cent of the trade of the United States would go out that way, and twenty-five per cent of its imports would enter by the same route.


Robert James Manion: Does the report from
which my hon. friend is quoting support the Georgian bay canal?


John Gordon Ross: The report says
absolutely nothing about it. It was prepared by a committee of gentlemen, most of whom were from the United States, with some representatives from Canada, but they were mainly interested in the St. Lawrence great waterways, or in the Hudson ship canal. As a matter of fact, they would not be interested in seeing Canada build a Georgian bay canal at all, because if it were built and in operation, a great deal of the commerce of the United States would come through Canadian ports and Canadian territory, including as I have already said forty-four per cent of their exports. That surely would be a big thing for Canada. We hear our hon. friends opposite every once in a while saying that we are being bled white because our wheat goes through Buffalo. Now if it cost from two to three cents less to carry that grain through the Georgian bay canal than it would via Buffalo, what would happen? All Canadian grain would go through the Georgian bay canal and most of the American grain also. The effect would be to build up cities such as Montreal and Quebec, to build up cities that would compare wdth New York, Boston, and other United States ports, because they would benefit by the trade of some forty millions of people whereas to-day they are only enjoying the trade of from five to ten million people.
There is one thing in connection with this canal project. My hon. friends opposite are much exercised over the fact that a private corporation is seeking to build the Georgian bay canal.


Robert James Manion: No, we are exercised
because they will not build it.


John Gordon Ross: Well, provide
proper safeguards, and if they will not build the canal take away from them the right to do so.


Robert James Manion: They have had thirty-three years to start it.


John Gordon Ross: But remember
there is an alternative at the present time, and that I think is what hon. gentlemen opposite are more exercised over than anything else.
It is that at the present time, and lapsing on the first of May as in the case of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian bay canal charter, there is a lease of the Carillon power on the Ottawa river, not owned by the public but by a company known as the National HydroElectric. They are in possession of some horse-power to-day, and if the Georgian bay canal bill is killed then in all probability the National Hydro-Electric will put forward its claim for the use of power at the point referred to. I submit that all power schemes -no matter whether it be the Ottawa and Georgian bay canal or any other enterprise- on navigable rivers in this country should be brought before this House and considered carefully in committee. We should not do what was done a few months ago when the government of t'he Right Hon. Arthur Meighen gave a lease to the National Hydro-Electric of the Carillon power for, I believe, a term of eighty years at a very small rental. If my information is not correct I should like to be corrected.


George Halsey Perley: I thinik the hon.
gentleman is somewhat mistaken as to that. There was an old lease for the development of power down there which was given some ten or fifteen years agp, but which was extended from time to time. An endeavour was made last summer to effect an arrangement between this company, the Hydro Electric of Ontario, and the government of Quebec with respect to this .power. The only way in which we can ever hope to get that matter settled and have the power developed is by an arrangement between the two provinces and the Dominion.


John Gordon Ross: My understanding is, and I happen to have read the sessional papers which were laid on the table, that this lease was renewed for eighty years. When this government came back into power I understand they cancelled the lease but recognised the old lease up till the first of May this year. Personally I do not believe that this government or any other government should be allowed, by order in council to hand over to

Georgian Bay Canal Company
any private concern the water-powers of this country. Therefore any such bill should come before this House, go before the proper committee, be ' looked into thoroughly and be passed by the House of Commons. That is why I say that this Georgian bay canal charter should go before this committee and if proper safeguards cannot be put into a charter for a private enterprise, we in this House should lay down the principle that neither the government nor anyone else can give away these powers until we have said so.
\\ hat will happen if we refuse to renew the Georgian bay canal charter now? If we do not grant the dharter, in all probability the canal will never be built, because, as different hon. members have said, it is too costly a proposition if the sale of power is not included. Some people ask: Why should the sale of .power help to carry the load? If you hand that power over to any private enterprise which has not built the canal, will it charge the people of this country one cent less than it can get for that power? Not if I know private enterprises in this country. They have never done so yet.
M hy are the National Hydro Electric, the International Paper Company, the Montreal power people, worrying about this deal? I think I can give the House one reason. In the charter as it is now before the House and assuredly as it will come out from the committee, there will be certain safeguards. Someone-I think it is the railway commission in the present canal charter-have the right to fix the tolls that shall be charged on the canal and the price that shall be charged for power. The International Paper Company, who have a great deal of horse-power right across the river from where we sit, and the Montreal interests, have nobody at present fixing the price for their power. But if you establish in this country a charter in which is fixed by government control the price that can be charged per horse-power when sold to the consumer, then you fix a price with which these other companies must compete. That competitive price will hold the price of hydroelectric power at the price which the railway commission sets until such time as there is a greater demand for power than can be supplied by the Georgian bay canal proposition and the other power interests. Then let us say that the private corporations will raise their price. Does any one mean to tell me that after the railway commission have gone publicly into the cost of that power and have set their price on that, the consumers of that electricity in this country will stand for private enterprise securing an exorbitant profit out of natural resources which actually belong

to us and which are only leased to them? That is one of the chief reasons why our friends from Montreal and some other parts of Canada are opposing this bill.
I want to see this bill go to the committee. I want to see the Dominion of Canada properly safeguarded as regards not only this canal scheme but all canal or power schemes in the future. We cannot to-day tell how far we may go with this thing. There may come a day when our .canals will go much farther into the centre of Canada. Some people will ask: How? There are rivers, even the Saskatchewan, that some day .may be used. I do not say that the Saskatchewan river will be. That is a far thought. But years .ago in this country just after Laurier came into power one of the ministers of the government stated that in a few years there would be a hundred million bushels of wheat grown on the prairies of western Canada and there would be a hundred thousand people in the city of Winnipeg. He was practically laughed out of this House of Commons in 1897. 1 Great things are possible with waterways in this country. If this committee does not see fit to grant a charter to the Georgian Bay Canal Company, they should certainly safeguard us so that nobody will be able to develop the water-power in the Ottawa river and in that territory through which the Georgian bay canal goes for private enterprises, thereby shutting us out from ever having a waterway that, when built, to my mind will be one of the greatest boons to this Dominion of Canada.


Mr. T. H. LENNOX (North York):: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that I am wholly and unalterably opposed to this bill,
I rise to speak with some degree of reluctance.
I do this because the gentleman who was my opponent in the recent election is apparently very deeply interested in the passage of this particular bill, and I fear that some of my hon. friends might be so unkind as to suggest that my opposition to the bill is actuated by personal reasons rather than in the interest of the people of this country. I am glad to be able to say that my late opponent, Mr. Sifton, and I are very warm friends, and it is a pleasure for me to say to-night that at the consummation of the campaign we were greater friends than when the campaign commenced. I am quite sure that Mr. Sifton will entertain the same feelings towards me notwithstanding the stand that I take in my remarks to-night.
I listened with a great deal of pleasure to the observations of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) and I have no

Georgian Bay Canal Company
quarrel whatever with any statement that was made by him. The whole gist of his speech was in favour of the construction of the Georgian bay canal, and I do not suppose there is in this House or out of it anyone who is opposed to the construction of the Georgian bay canal. The hon. gentleman pictured to this House the tremendous benefits which would be derived by the northern part of this province if that canal was constructed. With that I entirely agree, and I sincerely hope that the day may come, perhaps not in the near future, when the Georgian bay canal will be constructed.
I wish to confine my remarks very 'largely to the bill itself and I promise not to detain the House at any great length. I will not, if possible, repeat what has been said by previous speakers In the first place I notice that there is no obligation to spend any money before the expiration of three years and that upon the expenditure of $50,000 the company are under no further financial obligation for a period of six years. In other words, under the terms of this bill, if it be adopted, upon payment of $50,000, which will be returned if the canal is not constructed, this company is getting a charter to build the canal and to develop the water-powers for a period of nine years. The company has enjoyed that same option for thirty-three years without the payment of a single dollar. I ask hon. gentlemen here to-night what they think the hon. members who were responsible for the adoption of the bill would have done, how the bill would have been treated by them, if the company had asked for an option for forty-two years upon the payment of $50,000? Thirty-three years have passed in which nothing has been done and as far as we know not a single copper has been expended. Nine years more would bring the period up to forty-two years in which they will have held the option upon the payment of a mere $50,000. If we adopt this bill we endorse that principle. We come necessarily to the conclusion, then, that those members who in 1894 were responsible for the measure would have given an option to these people for forty-two years; and I submit that there was no one in the House or in any other house at the time who would ever think of tying up under those conditions the Ottawa river and these other waters for a period of forty-two years.
Mr. Sifton has stated in the press that it is the intention of his company to build this canal, and on that account he appeals to hon. gentlemen here to support it. I have no doubt that upon every occasion when the promoters
of this company appealed to the House for-an extension of time, the very same promises and the very same representations were made to hon. members in order to secure their support. Those who are prominently associated with the present company are new members of it, so far as we know. Their names were never associated with the Georgian Bay Canal Company until perhaps within the last year or two. They do not even possess the virtue of having spent a single dollar or made a single effort to carry on the construction of this canal. So that so far as they are concerned they are entitled to no consideration from this House, and I have no hesitation in suggesting that, having purchased an interest in this antiquated charter, shrewd, keen business men such as Mr. Sifton and those associated with him have made provision that if the bill be defeated they will suffer no monetary loss.
The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) read to the House two cablegrams in which it was stated that Sir Robert Perks and the original applicants or shareholders were still interested in this bill. If that be the case they are entitled to no consideration or sympathy from this House. For thirty-three long years these men-who, the hon. member for Nipissing said, were still associated with and are shareholders of the company-did nothing whatever to construct this canal. Having defaulted on thirteen different occasions over a period of thirty-three years, surely they cannot complain very much if the House now says to them, You have had thirty-three years in which to make at least a start with the construction of the canal; you have done nothing in that period, and you have suffered no injustice. I repeat that certainly no injustice could be done to them in view of their action, or lack of action, during that period.
Here we have a company which has received every possible indulgence from this House. Perhaps in no house of parliament has any company been treated with such generosity and fairness as this company has been treated with respect to the bill now before us. Are we going to encourage applications of this kind from time to time, not only from this particular company but from all companies who are in default? Are we going to put a premium on the company that defaults, that fails to carry out the obligation it undertakes when a bill of this kind is asked for? In my opinion, if the House adopt this bill, it is putting a premium on companies that default.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
I said a moment ago that this company had no reason to complain. Whether they are members of the present company or whether they are the original shareholders, they have no reason to complain of the treatment they have received from the different governments during the last thirty-three years. Let us see just for a moment if they have any complaint. The charter was issued in 1S94. This is the year 1927, and not a single dollar has been expended by or on behalf of this company during that period. They have done absolutely nothing; they come to us and have to admit that they are no further ahead today than they were in 1894, and they ask us, notwithstanding the fact that no development has taken place, that no construction has been made, and that until within the last year no plans or location were filed, to forget that they have failed to carry out the obligations which they assumed when the original bill was passed with its amendments; and they ask us now to give them a further Lease of life.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I notice that in the letter from the secretary of the Company which appeared in The Globe a few days ago he tries to explain the cause of the delay and states that in 1907 certain plans were deposited with the department. For the moment let us assume that to be true. The charter was granted in 1894. Not until thirteen years later, in 1907, was the first step taken to carry out the purposes of that charter. That is admitted by the secretary of the company. From 1907 until 1914, the first year of the war, no effort was made to get in touch with the department and file plans. From 1914 to 1918 nothing was done, and there should be no censure for this inaction because those were the years of the war when it would not be expected that such an undertaking would be proceeded with. However, the war concluded m 1918 and nothing was done in the way of filing plans until 1926-a period of eight years was permitted to elapse without any action being taken. The company remained idle, did nothing whatever to give to the people, whom to-day they are so solicitous to serve, the canal which my friend from Nipissing, (Mr. Lapierre) says would be of such benefit to northern Ontario. I cannot understand his being deluded and beguiled by this company any longer. One would think that after a period of thirty-three years without anything bfeing done towards building the canal, the very purpose for which the charter was granted, no man, certainly no member of parliament. could be fooled any longer as to the real intentions of the company. But

apparently it does not make any difference to my hon. friend. To my surprise the member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) is still willing to give credence and support to the professions of the company, notwithstanding what has taken place in the past, although it is true that he appeared rather uncomfortable during the course of his remarks.
As I said, the first move iby the company was in 1907, when certain plans were filed with the department. It is significant that that date synchronizes with the creation of the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission. When that commission began to function the company apparently realized that its franchise would become valuable by reason of the development of power along the route of the canal. But let us assume for a moment that the company really intends to build this canal, let us give it the benefit of the doubt, notwithstanding that the original members are still connected with it, notwithstanding the thirteen defaults that have occurred. Assuming that, do hon. gentlemen consider it good business to place in the hands of any private company or group of individuals the waterway along the Ottawa, the French and the other rivers? Can it be argued that it is in the interests of the people that a private company should have control of this canal and should be able in perpetuity to impose tolls for its use? Personally I do not approve of such a course. In the light of present day conditions no one can convince me that the people of this Dominion are in favour of, or will benefit by, placing this water-way in the hands of private individuals.
But. Mr. Speaker, supposing that the original bill with the amendments which have been made to it from time to time were now for the first time being introduced, would any hon. gentleman in this house have the temerity to support the bill? Well, we are practically in that position, and 'having the opportunity, why not regard this as an original application and deal with it from that standpoint? If hon. members are willing to do that, there is no doubt as to the destiny of this 'bill.
Going back to 1894, Sir, may I ask, what was then in the minds of the members of this house who were responsible for the adoption of the bill? Was it to build a canal, or was it to develop power, or to do both? I think I can safely say that thirty-three years ago such a thing as the development of power, on any large scale at least, was never within the contemplation of the members of this house or of the people generally. The whole objeot of the bill must- have been to construct a canal. That was thought to be feasible at

Georgian Bay Canal Company
the time, and it was not until the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario began to function that the members of this company, realizing what a valuable franchise they had, began to concentrate their energies upon the development of power. I have no hesitation in saying that the present extension is asked for solely for the purpose of exploiting the waterways of the country for private profit.
I may be asked the reason for this statement.
I say this, first, because of the very long delay that has taken place since the charter was granted in 1894. Furthermore, there was no obligation in the first bill for the building of the canal under a period of nine years, within which time the company had only to spend $50,000. all of which money might be devoted to the development of power; and if perchance the $50,000 was not expended in connection with the construction of the canal no loss would be sustained by the -company, because under the terms of the bill that money would be refunded in case of default


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Which bill is that?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: The original bill. I repeat, I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that the renewal now asked for is for the purpose of exploiting our waterways in order that this company may make money. Mr. Sifton and the gentlemen associated with him are not to blame if they are able once more to hoodwink the majority of the members of parliament. It is perfectly legitimate for them to secure if possible the passage of this bill; they are behind it to make money. But hon. members are here for one purpose amongst others, and that is to protect the public domain against exploitation by private individuals. If therefore the House fails in its duty, we cannot blame my good friend Mr. Harry Sifton if in the end he succeeds in getting the bill through.
Let me read an interview given by Mr. Sifton to the Toronto Star under date January 10, 1927. He says:
If the government approves the plan of the canal company a start shall have been made to give Canada the Georgian bay canal. The water-powers on the Ottawa river will be developed and available. The immensely expensive and valuable canal will be constructed without the expenditure of one dollar of public money.
Then in reply to a despatch to Ottawa published on the morning of January 21, Mr. Sifton said, after telling about this expensive canal:
In this connection I would say that in my opinion the profits from the power on the Ottawa river will not pay for the cost of the
canal. The great cost of the canal will be a heavy load to the power company which may onlv be lifted by the completion of the canal from one end to the other, thus giving the company an opportunity to collect tolls.
What does that mean? Mr. Sifton admits that the cost of the construction of the canal is going to be quite excessive. He freely ad-mitis that the profits derived from the water-powers will not be sufficient to pay for that construction and that it will be necessary for a time to collect tolls. Upon the latter part of his statement I am not going to dwell at the moment, but I want to call the attention of the House to the first portion of his remarks. Admittedly the receipts from the development of power will be very large but they will not be sufficient to enable the construction of the canal. It is admitted that from one million to one -million five hundred thousand horse-power can be developed on the river. There are at least ten water sites that can be utilized by this or any other water company that wishes to develop power along this route. Just think what these people are asking for: they are asking us to give the-m the right to develop more potential power than is being generated to-day and used in -the province of Ontario; they are asking us to give them, without charge, from one million to one million five hundred thousand horse-power. It may be contended that they will have to build the canal, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Cen-tre (Mr. Woodsworth) asked the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson) what guarantee there was that the canal would be built. Let us see what guarantee there is. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre was unable to answer the question, but perhaps I may be permitted to do so. I repeat, if this bill passes, we are going to allow this company the right to develop more power than is generated in other parts of Ontario to-day. Is it possible for anyone to estimate the money value of -the one million odd horse-power now under the control of the Hydro Electric Commission? Suppose the Ontario government became dissatisfied with public ownership and decided that in the interests of the people of the province it would be well to transfer this enterprise to the management of a corporation. How much money do you think the Ontario government would ask from a private corporation for the horse-power which is being generated in that province at the present time? It would be a fabulous sum beyond conception. It is of such value that no person could begin to estimate what that electric power is worth, but notwithstanding that we are asked to give this company for no consideration at

Georgian Bay Canal Company
all a quantity of electrical power which will in time bring in more revenue than is being collected in other portions of Ontario to-day from electric power generated theTe. This is a serious thing; it is not a question of politics; it is not a question on which we should divide along political lines. It is a business transaction, and if I am able to show before I conclude my remarks that there is no guarantee for the construction of the canal, it must mean that we are giving this corporation electric power which will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars to them in a short time.
If I may digress for just a moment, let us assume that a private company should take over the present hydro-electric system of Ontario; how would it affect the consumer of power in Ontario? At present every consumer receives his power for light and industrial purposes at actual cost, but the moment a private company took hold, if such a thing could happen, what would . occur? Not only would the consumer not get his power at cost but he would have to pay the private company at least a legitimate profit. That is exactly the position in which the users of electrical power in eastern Ontario will find themselves if this .power is developed by a private company.


Mr. MILLAR:: May I ask a question? Is the hon. member equally opposed to granting this privilege to any private concern?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Yes, very much so, and
with your permission I will deal with that very shortly. When my hon. friend asked the question I was pointing out, Mr. Speaker, that if a private individual secured control of the power generated by the Hydro Electric Commission it would increase the cost of that power to the consumer. It is admitted that in order to make money a private corporation must receive more than the actual cost of production, and it follows that if this power is developed by a private company there will be discrimination as between the users of that power in the eastern part of Ontario and those in the western and central parts. Is it fair; can it be justified to place the eastern consumers in that position? Can any reason in this world be advanced for that? Because I live in the eastern part of Ontario and because it is necessary for me to get my power from the Ottawa fiver, is there any justification for my paying more for that power than the man who lives in the western or central portion of the province? If there is no justification this bill should not pass, because being a private corporation it necessarily

follows that power cannot be supplied at cost, and to whatever extent their profit goes the eastern consumer will suffer. But I see that Mr. Victor Sifton, in the Star of February 28, 1927, referred to this question.


Edward Joseph Garland: I suppose
he is of the same family?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Yes, a brother. In dealing with this question he pointed out that the charter of this company provides that the rates charged for the sale of power and the tolls charged for navigation shall be directly under the supervision of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. That is all very well, but I ask hon. gentlemen now why we should put ourselves in the position of having to go before that railway board in order to fix the price that shall be charged for this electrical power. If an application is made or if any objection is taken to the price charged, what takes place? The company appears before the board and shows the amount of capital invested, the expenses which have been incurred asid the cost of carrying on. They have that within themselves; these figures are known only to them and it must necessarily be upon that basis, upon the figures presented to the railway commission, that the railway commission will be forced to name the rate, and no matter what it is they must be allowed a reasonable profit. We give the company the right to develop; we say to them, "You shall have full control of the development of these water-powers along the Ottawa river." If this bill is passed we also say, "You shall charge for the power, but if there is any dispute or if any complaint is made that you are charging too much, you must go to the railway board."


John Gordon Ross: May I ask a
question? Would they not be in a better position then than they are to-day in regard to the power which they are buying for the Ontario government?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: If my hon. friend will just permit me a moment longer, I will deal with that shortly. I say that the railway board will name tlhe rate upon representations made by this company and whatever that rate may be, whether too large or too small, there is no appeal. As I asked a moment ago, can anyone advance a legitimate reason that will appeal to the people of this Dominion for putting ourselves in that position? What reason is there for it? We do not have to do it. We are in a position now Where we can say to these people: We will not renew your charter. The moment we do that it will be

Georgian Bay Canal Company
quite unnecessary to trouble the railway board to fix the rates. My hon. friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) asked if that was not more favourable than the conditions as they exist at present? Well, I am speaking for the province of Ontario and I am glad to say that by reason of the policy enunciated in 1906 by the late Sir James Whitney there is no necessity to go before the railway board to fix any rates for the consumers of Ontario. My hon. friend asks if it is not better to have them fixed. How in the world is it better to do that, when the law in Ontario provides that the Ontario Hydro Commission must supply electric power to the consumer at actual cost.


John Gordon Ross: My hon. friend did not understand me correctly. The Ontario Hydro Electric Commission is to-day, I believe, buying power from the Gatineau Power Company or the concern that controls the Gatineau power. Can my hon. friend tell me how they will fix the rates at cost there?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: My hon. friend asks me how they will fix the rate there. Let me point out to him that the hydro policy was first inaugurated in 1906. Though it is a public ownership scheme it was found at that time necessary to purchase or lease the first 100,000 horse-power. The commission have the power either to purchase or to develop. They purchased that amount of horse-power, and that was the nucleus of public ownership with respect to power in the province of Ontario. My hon. friend asks what guarantee there is that they will get power at cost from the National hydro. I am glad my hon. friend asks the question. Just let me say this: Under the Georgian bay charter the Hydro Electric Commission has no power to do anything. It is contended by Mr. Sifton and his associates that under their charter, if it is extended once again, the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario would have nothing whatever to do with the water-powers on the Ottawa river. They take the ground that Ontario has no interest in the matter, and that the . only way in which it may be protected at all is by reason of the provision made with respect to the railway board. Now let me point out to my hon. friend the distinction between, the position of this company and that of the National hydro, and bear in mind that I .am not here holding any brief for the latter company; I am just as strongly opposed to the National hydro having any concessions or any rights on the Ottawa river as I am to the Georgian Bay Canal Company having them. But there is this distinction : the Georgian Bay Canal Company got their right under an act of parliament. Such being the case they claim to be absolutely supreme and to act in defiance of either the Quebec government or the Ontario government. On the other hand-and I Shall deal a little further with this point later on- the National hydro company have no such rights. They have only a lease which was granted to them many years ago, but subsequent to the passing of the bill of the Georgian Bay Canal Company in 1894. They have a lease from the government which was put through by order in council. Now the National hydro realize that they cannot develop power until they enter into an agreement or lease with the governments of Ontario and Quebec. With that object in view they have entered, it is said, into an agreement with t'he Quebec government. Negotiations have been going on between the Ontario government and National hydro for one moiety of power. Unless the terms are agreeable to the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission these men cannot develop one single horse-power-not a single horse-power. And the moment they begin to charge or to ask for excessive rates, then the Ontario government, or the hydro commission representing it, need not deal with them but may develop this power itself.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Are you aware that the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission is not functioning in northern Ontario, and that ninety per cent of the water-power in that section of the province has been sold to private interests, including those on the Abitibi and Kapuskasing rivers?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: That is a little too far
north for me.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: But it is part of the
province of Ontario.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I am speaking of the
horse-power that is being developed under the Hydro Electric Commission.
Now let me refer to another phase of this question, and this has to deal with the question that was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). My hon. friend asked what the penalty is for failure to build a canal. We know from the lips of Mr. Harry Sifton that the revenues from the development will not be sufficient, and we know that there will be very large revenues derived from the sale of power from these waterfalls. What will the government do? We will assume that in 1936 the company has expended $50,000, if you like, on the construction of the canal, and that during
Georgian Bay Canal Company

those nine years they have developed many of the waterfalls along the Ottawa river, the Carillon and many others-there are nine or ten of them. Assume that they do that and they can do it. Of that there can be no denial. They develop the water-powers and they spend $50,000, we will say, upon the construction of the canal which of course under certain conditions is returned to them. Now what can the government do in case of failure by the company to carry out its obligations? We find that in 1936 a large development has taken place in connection with the water-powers. We find that $50,000 perhaps, has been expended upon the canal, but there has been no construction work over and above that. What does the government do? What power has it under the provisions of this bill? All the power it has is to cancel the right of the company to go with the construction of the canal. That is the only power that is left. The government cannot interfere with the water-powers, there is no provision for that in the bill, but it can say to them in 1936:	Here, Mr. Sifton, you have had nine
years to construct this canal. It is true you have expended money in the development of water-powers, which are a source of revenue to you, but you have done nothing towards building the canal and therefore we will not let you do anything further in that direction. What a horrible punishment that will be! Really I would not like to be the one who would'have to tell the company in 1936 that that would occur. It is a shame to think that in 1936, presupposing there has been no expenditure and no construction work done on the canal, that these gentlemen are going to be punished to the extent that the government will say to them: Put that surplus money in your pockets. You have not built the canal. You must keep that money and pay dividends on it. It is yours. We will not let you spend it. We are going to determine or cancel your rights under this agreement. That is the position; it makes no difference what any person says to the contrary, that is the interpretation of this bill and what that is, in my opinion, will result in 1936.
Let me ask this question: Supposing that this bill, instead of being passed as it is and has been for the last thirty-three years, were coming into this House for the first time and that this company was asking for the right to develop the water-powers of this country without the payment of a single dollar? Would anybody support it? Is there an hon. gentleman within the walls of this chamber that would give his support to a bill the whole aim and object of which was the development of power? Yet that is exactly

what may and will happen if this bill becomes law. This is a private company; they are not particularly solicitous-and no one will blame them for that-for the welfare of the people of this Dominion. Like that of every other private corporation or company their whole aim and object is to make money out of this scheme. That being the case, does anyone for a moment suppose that the gentlemen who form this company are going to take the profits derived from the sale of the power which they develop and put them into the construction of a canal? They would be crazy to do such a thing when the only penality is the removal of the octopus that they will be so glad to get rid of.
I just want again to impress upon hon. gentlemen that there is no escape from that in connection with this bill. No excuse can be offered by hon. gentleman for supporting this bill in view of the fact that it has the same effect as if the bill itself asked us to give them all the water-powers along the Ottawa river, allow them nine years to develop those water-powers and not ask them for a single copper. That is a serious matter. It is bad enough to give this to them if there is any legal obligation upon them to construct the canal, but it is absolutely indefensible to hand over to any private corporation or company an asset, a franchise, the value of which cannot be estimated. Are we discharging our duty as trustees of the people of this Dominion, realizing as we must, knowing as we do, that the moment this bill becomes law there is no machinery in the world, there is no provision in or outside of the bill, to compel the construction of that canal?
Why then should we give to this corporation this valuable asset? What reason is urged by the'company that we should do so? What inducement do they offer to us to hand over to them these water-powers of such fabulous value? It is true they say that they will build the canal, but they have said that for thirty-three years, and those of us who know these gentlemen know that they are not in this scheme for the good of their health or for the financial welfare of the people of this Dominion. Therefore I repeat that every hon. gentleman who gives his support to this bill gives to this company the right, without a single copper of cost, without any restriction, to develop the water-powers, and at the same time he relieves them of the construction of the canal. All the company has to do is to take advantage of its own wrong, its own delay, its own failure to carry out the terms of this agree-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
ment in order to be relieved of the construction of the canal. Surely no company, no man, should be allowed to benefit or to receive financial advantage by reason of failure to do what it was its or his duty to do.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do I understand the hon. member's remark to mean that if they fail to construct the canal, they will still be in possession of the water-powers?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Absolutely. That cannot
be denied.


John Gordon Ross: Still, the hon.
gentleman must admit that after his enlightening speech no committee of the House of Commons would allow the bill to come out from that committee without proper provisions, without a proper safeguard.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I do not know. It has
gone through thirteen times and I prefer not to take any chances myself. I do not know what the hon. gentleman would do. In view, however, of what the hon. member has said, that is exactly what they are asking for. Under Bill No. 78 they have asked us to give them exactly the same powers, the same privileges, the same rights, without any change, alteration or restriction that they have received since 1894 in the different extensions.


Robert James Manion: Except that the period is
nine years instead of eight.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Yes. It will probably take an extra year to develop these water-powers. I just want to say to my hon. friend that I have not heard of there being any suggestion of any change. The company ana asking that Bill 78 be passed extending the time, but I sincerely hope that if in a moment of weakness we should allow this bill to receive its second reading, my hon. friend will attend the railway committee, of which I unfortunately am not a member, and see that we are amply protected.


John Gordon Ross: I will guarantee
that. I am a member.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I am very glad that my
hon. friend has so much influence with the party to which he is affiliated.


Mr. VALLANCE:: The hon. member said this bill went before the committee thirteen times. Was it not passed in the House without going to the railway committee?


Thomas Herbert Lennox: Perhaps I made a mistake. I apologize. If it went before the committee thirteen times, I would not object, but it was before the House thirteen times. The House extended the charter without even sending it to the committee.


John Vallance: The hon. member said it went before the committee thirteen times.


Thomas Herbert Lennox: I apologize. I should have said it went before the House, and the House extended it without sending it to the committee.
I hope the House will bear with me while I deal with another phase of this bill-probably the most obnoxious and indefensible part of it. I refer to the fact that it overrides the acknowledged rights of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Since 1S94, when the original bill was introduced, the rights of the Dominion and of the provinces have been well defined with respect to the powers in connection with navigable streams. It is well known that the Dominion has paramount rights with respect to navigation, and I think it is equally well known, or at least it ought to be, that subject to the right of the Dominion with respect to navigation the provinces have absolute control over the water-powers of the navigable streams in this country. About a year ago the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) admitted that in a debate in this House when he stated that the Dominion government had no right to interfere with the provincial governments with respect to the water-powers of the streams and rivers in this country. If the minister was correct in that statement-and I quite agree with him-then, what are we doing, and what are we facing? It is true that if this bill be adopted it carries with it all the water-powers that are in the gift, or are supposed to be in the gift, of the Dominion government. But if the Dominion government has no control over the water-powers of these rivers, then so far as that section of the bill is concerned the act is ultra vires.
If we accept the statement of the Minister of the Interior, who was speaking as a minister of the crown and I assume on behalf of the government, and supposing it to be true that the Dominion has no right so to interfere, what is there to be gained by adopting this bill? What will it mean? We have heard the statement made by the Premier of Ontario that he will never consent to the Dominion government interfering with the waterfalls of the rivers in this province. He has given warning in the last four or five days that if this bill should by any chance become law the Ontario government, assisted by the government of the province of Quebec, will take whatever means they may deem necessary in order to have their rights declared. If that be so, what object is to be gained in passing a bill which will entail prolonged litigation, extending prob-
970	COMMONS
Georgian Bay Canal Company
ably over years and years, during which time the waterfalls in the Ottawa river will be tied up and the people of eastern Canada made to suffer to that extent?
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) referred to the National hydro. As I said at that time, I have no interest in the National hydro, and nothing will please me more than to see whatever rights they have rescinded. But I want to draw attention of hon. members to this fact: In 1894 this charter was granted. As far back as 1911 the government of the day leased to the National hydro a quantity of power for which they were to pay $2 per horse-power. The lease was to extend over a period of sixty-three years, and as has been stated in this House, that lease was renewed in 1921. I draw the attention of the House to that original lease for this purpose: if the government of the day thought for one moment that under this charter the Georgian Bay Canal Company had control and were possessed of the water-power, they never would have granted this lease. Bear in mind that no matter who develop the power- even the hydro commission-before they can do anything they must have a lease or agreement with the Dominion government preserving its rights. I say they could not have considered that clause in the charter with respect to power as of any value, or if they did, the conclusion that we are driven to is that the government of the day fifteen or sixteen years ago had no confidence in the sincerity and the ability of this company to carry out their obligations under their charter. It is a singular thing that if the government for one moment contemplated the rights that are being asserted by this company, and that are being supported,
I regret to say, by certain hon. members in this House, then it is unbelievable that they would issue another lease to another company to allow them to develop the Carillon falls.
In conclusion, I desire to read to the House a part of an interview by my friend Mr. Harry Sifton. Before doing so I wish to state that in my experience as a public man, which has extended over a considerable period, I have never known the press of this country to be so unanimously opposed to a bill as they are to this measure. So far as Ontario is concerned, to my knowledge there is not, except perhaps in the extreme north, a single newspaper published in any village, town or city throughout the province that is not utterly opposed to parliament passing this bill. No matter what the merits or demerits of a measure may be, it is not often that we find such unanimity amongst both Liberals and Conservatives editing the newspapers of the province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a few extracts from an interview which my friend, Harry Sifton, gave the Daily Star on January 10th:
Harry Sifton in these words explains the present standing of matters along the Ottawa in an interview over the week-end.
Mr. Sifton said that the National HydroElectric Company of Montreal is striving to render ineffective the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.
On behalf of the canal company he replied to a special despatch from Ottawa published Saturday morning. Mr. Sifton stated that there is a group

Now, I ask hon. members to listen to this.
Mr. Sifton stated that there is a group of capitalists who have sought to control the government of Canada for the purpose of running Canada to suit themselves and, "having failed in political intrigues it appears that what they want now is not the right to govern Canada fairly but the right to exploit it."
That is a reference to the National Hydro Electric Company, which has interests only in a waterfall that will generate a little over two hundred thousand horse-power. In Mr. Harry Sifton's view that company is exploiting the people of this country by seeking to develop power at the Carillon falls; but the Georgian Bay Company, owned by capitalists controlling. as they hope, not only the Carillon falls but every other water-power on the Ottawa river, are not exploiting, they are looking after the interests of the people of Canada! Let me read further:
Mr. Sifton thinks that a speedy investigation in the interests of the people is urgently needed.
I think so too, and we are here for that very purpose, to protect the people of this Dominion from such exploitation. The interview continues:
The situation on the Ottawa river is simply this. The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company is a company chartered by the government to construct a waterway from Montreal to the Georgian bay. Its charter is of very long standing and has been frequently renewed by various parliaments. The rights are therefore absolute and cannot be altered except by an Act of parliament. . . .
The National Hydro-Electric Company holds a lease from the federal government of the water-powers at the Carillon section of the Ottawa river, but this lease was granted subsequently to the chartering of the canal company, and is in my opinion valueless as long as the canal charter is in existence.
May I ask bon. gentlemen to follow me while I. read the next interesting part of this interview:
Some years ago Ontario was threatened by a power monopoly in the hands of short-sighted capitalists. She very wisely grappled with the question and set up the Hydro Electric Com-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
mission to develop and sell electric power at cost to the people. The duty of the Hydro Electric Commission is to fight exploitation by narrow-minded and selfish private interests, who give nothing in return for the gift of public property which they acquire through the payment of trifling fees.
Here we have out of the lips of the gentleman who is vitally interested in the -passage of this bill a statement to the effect that the Hydro Electric Commission was only doing its duty in grappling with these private interests, and that by reason of the action of that commission in defending the rights of the people these capitalists did not get hold of the public domain, and as a result the people of Ontario were getting their power at -cost.
Now, I wonder whether there is any dissimilarity between the condition at that time and the condition to-day. Here we have a private corporation, a body of capitalists banded together for the purpose of taking from the people their water-powers. The very same thing, my friend says, occurred some years ago, and then it was incumbent on the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission in order to defend the rights of the people to take control and generate electric power. That is exactly what I am asking for to-night. I am asking that these two bills, both of which in my opinion are indefensible, both of which are ultra vires of the powers vested in the parliament of Canada, be rejected. In a word, I am asking you to-night to do what my friend Mr. Sifton says was done, and was necessary to be done, in order to prevent the exploitation of these water-powers by private capitalists. I am asking the house to do what he says is the . proper thing to do-cancel both these alleged agreements or charters, and thus permit the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission, associated as it will be with the government of Quebec in dealing with these inter-provincial waters, to develop this water-power so that the people of the eastern part of Ontario may be put upon an equal footing with those in the middle and western portions by acquiring their power at cost.


Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I understand that in
the near future amendments are to be moved in connection with the rules of the House. I hope that the first one will be to limit to twenty minutes the length of members' speeches, so that in future we shall not be forced to listen to speeches as protracted- although eloquent-as the one which has just been delivered by the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox).
The question of the Georgian bay canal is of such import to the people of the riding which I have the honour to represent that I would fail in my duty if I did not rise to state openly that I approve entirely of the bill which is under consideration by the House. I do not clearly understand the attitude of a great number of members, and particularly that of the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley) who is directing the opposition to the Georgian bay canal bill.
As you have heard it mentioned, Sir, by a number of members, it is now thirty-two years since this charter was granted. It was in 1894. Thirteen times, or thereabouts- every second year, I think, the members of the Georgian Bay Canal Company have come before parliament in order to have their charter renewed. Each time it was done without practically any opposition, therefore. I fail to understand why the request of this company raises so much opposition on the fourteenth time. I presume that quite a number of those who are opposed to the renewal of this . charter, would prefer that concessions be granted to private companies for the development of the water-powers on the St. Lawrence. It seems to me, Sir, that it is better to help this company, which beside developing the water-powers, as any other private concern would do, will give us a canal that will shorten the route between Montreal and Fort William by many hundred miles. This would mean a reduction in freight rates and allow Nova Scotia to ship its coal at more favourable conditions. It would also benefit the western provinces in the shipping of their wheat. On that score it is but natural that we should give preference to the Georgian Bay Canal Company, which will perhaps spend hundreds of millions in the dredging of this canal and thereby bring prosperity to the workmen of this country. I believe that it is better to favour this company than to grant a franchise to a private enterprise who would only develop the water-powers.
It is pointed out that the provinces have rights over the water-powers of the St. Lawrence. I understand that in the present bill there exists a clause which stipulates that the provinces may exact that their rights be protected, preventing thereby all encroachments by any company. For my part, I strongly support this scheme, and I trust that the House will sanction the second reading of this bill.
The opponents of this project may, in the committee on private bills, introduce all the amendments they wish; however in the inter-

97S

Georgian Bay Canal Company
est of the country as well as that of all the provinces, I deem it absolutely necessary that this charter be renewed.
In fairness to the people I have the honour to represent,-I wish to state once more that I shall support heartily this bill. I trust that the House will see fit to sanction it without opposition and that, in the committee on private bills, all the amendments moved to improve the bill will be accepted.


James Arthurs: I have no hesitation in speaking on this subject, not only because of my length of service in this House, but for other reasons. I have had considerable experience with this particular bill. I came here in 1908 and at that time this was a burning question, not only in northern Ontario, as my hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) knows, but throughout the Dominion. Shortly after that large delegations came down to Ottawa, some of them as great as the one that came here a year or so ago in connection with the automobile industry. One of the largest delegations that ever came to the capital and probably the most representative was concerned with this very matter, and it was drawn from almost every constituency in Quebec and Ontario. I am quite sure that it represented every constituency between the great lakes and Calgary, that is, as the constituencies then stood. They were unanimous in favour of the immediate construction of this canal.
The canal scheme as it was instituted by the Georgian Bay Canal Company has met with considerable criticism in this House to-night, but we must look at the state of affairs as it existed when the bill was first introduced in 1894. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mamion) pointed out that this company in the first instance indicated merely a desire to build a canal nine feet deep between the mouth of the French river and Montreal. But shortly after the scheme had been initiated by the company the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were influenced to take a hand in it and they spent a good deal of money in a very intensive survey of that portion of the canal that lay between the mouth of the French river and North Bay. They proposed to build at that time a fourteen foot canal, and I believe that apart from the exigencies of their financial situation the Canadian Pacific would probably have built the canal then. Soon after, the Canadian government itself took hold of the matter. As has been pointed out, this bill has come before parliament repeatedly, and the government made a most exhaustive survey both between the mouth of the French river and
fMr. Fontaine.]
North Bay, on the one hand, and between that point and Montreal on the other, a survey that cost Canada something like a million and a quarter. The report of that survey was distributed to the public at that time and, I believe, is now available to members in the library. The conclusion, as my hon. friend from Nipissing rightly points out, was that the scheme was perfectly feasible and there was no doubt that the canal could be constructed, very materially shortening the distance between the west and Montreal. The work could be done at a very low cost and it would enable ships of twenty-four feet draft to traverse that waterway without any difficulty whatever. This is practically the history of the case.
We have had frequent applications for a renewal of the charter, and when I came into the House first, and for many years after, every member from the west was in favour of the scheme. While this project, according to the engineers employed by our own government, was feasible as a waterway, we had various schemes which were really intended to develop the water-powers of the country at or about the same time that hydro-electric power began to give evidence of value. I remember in the old chamber of this House a gentleman, then the member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River, the late Mr. Conmee, bringing in a bill, which very nearly went through, the object of which was to construct a canal from the mouth of the Nipigon river, over to the Winnipeg river, thence to the Saskatchewan river and up to the Rocky mountains; and there was no question whatever that the object of that proposal was to acquire the power rights along the route.
Our friends, perhaps on this side of the House as well, who oppose the bill being sent to the committee, forget the fact that according to the charter as renewed from time to time-and we admit there have been many renewals from 1894 to the present date-if the promoters of this undertaking were anxious to merely develop the water-powens along the route, all they needed to do was to spend $50,000 to be on the safe side. They have not done so, nor have they taken any action such as would indicate that they have an eye to the power alone. In the meantime, parliament has made certain encroachments upon the original charter. The company at first were given shore rights, water rights, and so forth, but changes have been made and we find now that many of these rights granted to the company as originally constituted have been withdrawn by the railway committee. In the first place, the right of expropriation

Georgian Bay Canal Company
was taken by the Dominion. That is to say, at any time on one week's notice the Dominion could acquire all the rights which the company then held. This is provided for in. section 5 of the act of 1906. This took from the company any privileges which the government of the Dominion might wish to abrogate, and this after one week's notice. The next change came in 1912, when another renewal was asked for, and at that time paragraph (g) of section 8 of chapter 103 of the revised statutes of 1894 was repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Produce, lease and supply, or otherwise dispose of surplus hydraulic, electric and other kinds of power developed in connection with and for the purposes of the works hereby authorized, the rates or prices at or for which such hydraulic and electric power may be disposed of by the company to be fixed or determined by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. . . .
That put a stop to any exploitation in connection with the water-power or water rights outside of those directly connected with the works of the company. These powers were taken over by the Dominion, and the price was to be fixed by the railway board. Then we go further and find that in order to protect the provinces, in 1913, one year later, an amending act was passed which contained the following clause:
Nothing in this act, or in any other act governing or affecting the company, shall be construed to authorize or empower the company to enter, or take, or use the public lands of the province of Ontario or Quebec without the consent of the lieutenants governor in council of the respective provinces, except to the extent necessary for the purpose of constructing the canal and necessary works incidental thereto, and for the purpose of developing power necessary for the operation of the canal.
I would ask the House to pay particular attention to the closing words. The company had the right to develop power independent of the provinces only to the extent necessary to the operation of the canal; in all other respects, according to the act as it now stands, they are subject in the first place to the control of the railway commission and they have no power to create or sell any power without the consent of the lieutenants governor in council of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. So far the argument against this 'bill must fall down. It is undoubtedly true that this bill has stood for many years, and that except in surveys this company has spent very little if any money in the development of the work. But we have in our hands to-day a bill which was passed renewing a charter originally granted in 1893 for the purpose of building a railway 32649- 621
line, for which every hon. member of this House votedi or against which by his acquiescence he did not vote, and we have many of these cases.
In regard to the actual construction of the canal we in northern Ontario feel it to be a perfectly feasible scheme. I spoke for hours in the old House and in the Victoria Museum in connection with this matter and I am sure hon. members can read the facts for themselves. We believe that through this canal we can be sure of a waterway entirely within Canada and entirely under the control of Canadians, which will shorten the distance and lower the freight rate on every bushel of grain shipped from the west and sent eastward. I have no doubt of that in my own mind. The argument of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that the company proposes to collect tolls is very foolish, I think. If this canal were built from the mouth of the French river to Montreal and if tolls were collected, what is to be understood? It must be a cheaper means of carrying grain than the present route via the St. Lawrence, otherwise no sensible man would pay a toll to go through the canal. It is absolutely clear to anyone that if tolls are to be collected the canal must be of some benefit to the man who pays the toll.
I could go on for an hour or so, but I have no desire to delay the House. I simply want to say that in my experience in this House we have never refused to let a bill go to a standing committee. I am in favour of permitting this bill to go to committee, with the reservation that the public should be protected in every possible way and that before it finally passes this House, if it does pass, there should be a clause inserted more comprehensive perhaps than that already in the bill, giving the railway board power to adjust the rates. I would suggest that any power developed in the process of constructing this canal should be under the control as to prices, if in Ontario, of the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission, or if in Quebec it should be controlled by the government of that province. With that guarding clause I believe any reasonable man would say that this bill should take whatever fate may await it in the railway committee in the ordinary way.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hour is somewhat late, Mr. Speaker, and I would hesitate to delay my hon. friends longer. As my remarks will be somewhat extended I would beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
5S0

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Edward Joseph Garland: On the
point of order, may I just say to hon. members opposite, who are usually exceedingly courteous to me at least and to most of my colleagues on this side, that I was perfectly well aware of the rule, and that I rose to speak presuming that hon. gentlemen opposite would not take advantage of such a rule at this time. My motion w-as not made, Mr. Speaker, for partisan purposes of any kind but simply out of consideration not only for my own physical well-being but for that of hon. members opposite, and I am sorry they have chosen to take advantage of a point of order

Georgian Bay Canal Company
of this kind. May I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I bow to the inevitable ruling which you must give in this matter, but I am sorry that hon. gentlemen opposite have not been as courteous as they usually are under the circumstances.


Hewitt Bostock: As the hon. member submits to the rule I will not apply the axe. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle now has the floor.


John Millar: At
this late hour my remarks will be very brief. An English economist once said that for commercial purposes the measure of distance -was not the number of miles but the freight rate. In other words if the freight rate between two points is doubled the distance for commercial purposes is doubled also.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. There are too
many members of the House speaking to each other whilst the debate is proceeding, and it is disturbing the hon. member who has the floor.


John Millar: I approach this question
with a great deal of caution, yet I realize it is one of vital importanace. In western Canada we are at a great distance from the seaboard, and anything that will tend to lessen the cost of transportation lessens in a commercial way the number of miles that products have to be carried. I am also quite well aware that our experience with canals' in the past, and the experience of the United States also, has been rather disappointing. Let me give the House some figures regarding an experience in connection with the Erie canal.
From a pamphlet issued in New York I quote the following figures referable to the year 1921:
Bushels
Number of bushels of wheat carried
to New York by rail	 46,686,000
Number of bushels of wheat carried
by water	 7,315,000
Number of bushels of corn carried
by rail	 11,664,000
Number of bushels of corn carried
by water	 1,565.000
As a matter of fact, the experience of the Erie canal has been that ninety-one per cent of the grain going into New York goes by rail notwithstanding the fact that the rates are about the same as by canal. I will quote the showing of a few years to illustrate that. For the year 1900 the rate by lake and canal from Chicago to New York was 4.92 cents, and by lake and rail 5.5 cents. You will see there was very little difference. In 1901 the rate from Chicago to New York was 5.64 by lake and canal and 5.57 by lake and rail.
Sometimes the rate by lake and rail is greater, and at other times it is greater by lake and canal. The experience in connection with the construction of the several Welland canals has also been disappointing. Each time we have built a new canal the expectation has been that it would carry a great deal of traffic but after construction the amount carried has been disappointing. I will give one exception to the general experience. The amount of freight passing through the Sault canal, both American and Canadian, has been exceedingly large. It has nm from 66,000,000 tons to 91.000,000 tons during the last eight or ten years, or has varied between those figures. The question arises, why is that? It is simply because rail transportation cannot compete with open water transportation. There is open water competition through lake Superior, and lake Huron, and it is utterly impossible for the rail route to compete with the open "water route. A very striking illustration of this is given by Mr. S. A. Thompson, Secretary-Treasurer of the National Rivers and Harbours Congress, of Washington, D.C., before the convention of the National Waterways Association of Canada. In an address delivered at Toronto on March 8, 1921, he gives this remarkable illustration. He said:
Let me give you a concrete illustration of the difference in the cost of transportation by water anti by rail. Through the Soo canal, at the outlet of lake Superior, there were carried, in 1913, 79,718,344 tons of freight. This was carried an average distance of 820 miles, at an average cost of two-thirds of one mill per ton per mile. If this same quantity of freight had been sent an equal distance by rail at the average rate received by United States railways for that year it would have cost $445,555,488 more than was actually paid for its transportation by water.
Summarized, that means this: On the tonnage that passed through the Soo canal in one year and was carried 820 miles, the cost, if it had been carried at the average rate paid to United States railways, would have been $445,000,000 odd more than it actually was. That shows the great advantage of water over rail transportation. If we had open water navigation through the Georgian bay canal, or through the St. Lawrence, or through the Welland canal, the cost of transportation of wheat and other coonmodities would be greatly decreased. But I approach this matter with caution because I am aware that transportation through the canals is very expensive; that it approaches in many leases almost, if not. quite, the cost, of rail transportation.
One point of advantage which the Georgian bay canal possesses is that it is an alUCana-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
dian route. If my memory serves me well, during the war the United States authorities wished to build a dam on their side of the St. Lawrence route. I may not be absolutely correct in all my details in connection with this matter and I stand to be corrected; but I believe they were given permission by the president, subject to approval of the details of their {dan by the International Joint Commission. They proceeded to build that dam under t'he arrangement that, it should be removed within one year after the close of the war. Yet that dam still remains there to-day. I mention that only to show the internal complications that may arise between Canada and the United States when they are operating a joint water route.
As Canadians we are in this position: we may not like the idea of giving this franchise over to a private concern; but if this canal is going to be constructed', if there is going to be any water transportation scheme, it is impossible to construct the- navigation part of the scheme and make it pay without the water-powers. The right of navigation is under the control of the Dominion government. The right of water-power is under the control of the provincial government. The water-powers may be developed without the navigation but the navigation cannot be made to pay without the water-powers. The question is: What is the alternative? Is it worth while to stop and think of that?
Will the Dominion of Canada-which by the British North America Act controls navigation, which should have control of the navigation on this Ottawa river and through those lakes and rivers-transfer that right to the province? Will it give up that right without proper safeguards, and can that right be properly safeguarded? If it does not do that, will it permit the province to develop the water-powers without any consideration whatever for the navigation? Once the water-powers are developed, it will be utterly impossible to develop the navigation afterwards and the canal will be lost to Canada for all time. Is it not worth while to consider those matters? Is it not worth while to send this bill to a committee where the matter may be thoroughly investigated, where the details may be threshed out, where the engineers may be brought before the committee and questioned? I would be sorry indeed to see this charter granted without question, but I would also be sorry to see a transportation system that might be of great benefit to western Canada and to Canada as a whole lost to Canada simply because the committee were afraid to listen to the engineers, to listen to both sides and

to judge for themselves. Why should the members of the railway committee be terrified to go down into the committee room and allow the engineers and others to speak in favour of and against the scheme, to hear the pros and cons? Is there any reason why the members of the committee should be afraid of themselves? I think the proper thing is for the bill to go before the railway committee.
During the discussion this afternoon the St. Lawrence waterways came up for consideration. Allow me to point out that on'ce the Welland canal is constructed, the danger of Oswego taking a large part of Canadian freight and turning it to United States ports will be equally as great as the danger is now in regard to Buffalo. A large part of Canadian freight is passing through United States channels. We as Canadians wish to prevent that, but the House may rest assured that the completion of the Welland canal will not settle that problem. Oswego is nearer to New York than is Buffalo. Allow the large ships carrying large cargoes to pass through the Welland' canal to the eastern end of lake Ontario and what will happen? Oswego will become a keener competitor than Buffalo, is to-day. The advantage of this other route, if it should be found feasible for navigation purposes, means that there is no joint ownership. It is an all-Canadian route. As has been pointed out, it is a direct route with a saving of about 280 or 282 miles.
Some Objection has been taken to the fact that if this should be Completed by private enterprise tolls would be charged. I do not think we should object to paying a reasonable toll for the service, because the Dominion would be freed from spending one dollar on constructing the canal and developing the water-powers. There is not therefore any reason why those using those canals should not pay a reasonable toll. It would be necessary, of course, that this matter should be properly safeguarded.
There might be a danger that if this charter were granted as it stands now the water-power might be developed and the canal for navigation purposes might be delayed, might even not be built. If that cannot be safeguarded by legislation, I do not think it would be wise to grant the charter at all, but surely it is worth while to give it a fair trial and send it to committee where it can be thoroughly discussed.
It has been said by those who advocate this route that it will save from five to ten cents, per bushel on grain. I take that with a grain of salt. I also take with a grain of salt
9S3

Georgian Bay Canal Company
the statement, of the advocates of the St. Lawrence route, when they say it will save from five to ten cents. I am very doubtful if that saving will be made on either route, but it is worth while studying it very, very carefully. If there should be a saving on either of these routes of anything like that to the people of western Canada, and the people of Canada as a whdle, the people's representatives will make a grand mistake if they turn a deaf ear and refuse to study the matter, only to find out in later years that they had thrown away something that was worth while. One hon. member has asked, why build such a route to compete with the Hudson bay route? One might just as well ask, why build a branch line in northern Saskatchewan to compete with a branch line in southern Alberta? The Hudson bay route and the Georgian bay canal are about 1,500 miles apart. No one ever thought, when he advocated the Hudson bay route that the traffic passing out by the great lakes through Fort William and the St. Lawrence was going to dry up. We want a number of routes, the more the better, provided they do not cost too much.
I appeal for consideration of this question. If this proposition is referred to a committee I do not think there will be any inclination to be unjust or unfair. It -can be sifted to the bottom, and those who advocate the Georgian bay route, and those who are opposed to it will have an opportunity to present their views. It may be possible that the lack of safeguards whibh has been complained of may be remedied. I believe the whole matter should be taken up and investigated from the start. Very many changes have taken place since this charter was granted thirty odd years ago. The need for deeper boats with a heavier draft has been very marked. I observe in a statement by a prominent authority that since 1914 the increase of draft of boats the world over has been thirty-three and a third per cent. The depth of canal that might have been sufficient thirty years ago would be quite inadequate now. Thirty years ago water-power was not considered as valuable as it is to-day, so that it would be wise to review the whole question, study it from the first, and look at it as though it had never been touched. I do not say that I would support it or that I would oppose it, but by the time it has been thoroughly threshed out it may look different.
I move the adjournment of tihe debate.


Hewitt Bostock: Before the motion is put, according to the rules, when two motions for the adjournment of the debate or for the adjournment of the House are made there must
be an intermediate proceeding. I would refer to Bourinot at page 323. where he says:
In case there is a substantive motion of adjournment before the House, and it is negatived, some proceeding must be had in order to render a second motion to the same effect regular. A message from the governor general followed by other proceedings would be sufficient to render a second motion of adjournment valid. The rule applies literally to the adjournment of the House, and not of the debate, but it is usual and convenient to make an entry in the journal between two motions of the latter character.
If it is the desire of the House, by unanimous consent. 1 will take the opportunity to lay on the table two copies of the report of the by-elections held during 1925-26, pursuant to section 72 of the Dominion Election Act. This creates an intermediate proceeding, and now the motion for adjournment can be made.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: Has the hon. member
from Qu'Appelle concluded his speech?


John Millar: I moved the adjournment of the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: I understood the hon.
member had concluded his speech, and the hon. member from Grenville-Dundas has moved the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King tl*e House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Tuesday, March 8, 1927