1927-03-14

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 145, to incorporate Thousand Islands International Bridge Corporation.- Mr. Edwards (Ottawa).


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I promised my hon. friend
from Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Tolmie) to lay on the table a copy of the order in council appointing Mr. Justice Martin commissioner to inquire into the arguments of the government of the province of British Columbia in support of its claim for the reconveyance to the province by the government of Canada of the lands conveyed by the province to the Dominion. I now table a copy of the order.



SCRIP FRAUDS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 146, to amend the Criminal Code (scrip frauds).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. KENNEDY:: This is the same bill that was introduced last year. It aims to strike out sub-paragraph (a) of section 1140 of the Criminal Code. The sub-paragraph which it is desired to strike out limits to three years the time within which action may be commenced for any offence arising out of the
allocation of land that was paid for, in whole or in part by scrip, and was granted upon certificates issued to half breeds in connection with the extinguishment of Indian title.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. A. HALL (South Bruce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 147, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, respecting appointments.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Mr. HALL:: The object of this bill is to
give some discretionary powers to the Civil Service Commission in the matter of appointments, instead of confining them in every case to the appointment of the person whose name stands highest on the eligible list. This list is not always prepared by the commission nor approved by it. May I say that the bill does not propose to repeal a single clause or even a word of the present act; it simply seeks to insert a clause expressing the purposes of the measure.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I desire to bring to the attention of the government a matter that came to me in the mail. I received a letter to-day-at least it came to my box on Saturday

from the Assistant Postmaster General, indicating that examinations will be held for a certain class of postal clerk, and I desire to draw the attention of the government to one or two matters in connection therewith. The letter reads that:
Candidates wishing to take this examination must file an application with the Civil Service Commission on or before the fifteenth instant.
Then a little further down it says:
I would suggest, therefore, that if you know of any candidates who are desirous of entering the postal service you will advise them to file application with the Civil Service Commission at once, signifying their intention of writing at the examination, as this is the only way they can obtain a permanent position.
And then there is a list of the cities where this examination is to be held. First, I bring this fact to the attention of the government: that it would be utterly impossible for a candidate in British Columbia to give notice to the Civil Service Commission by March 15. I received this letter on March 11 and it was
Civil Service

mailed on the same date although it is dated March 7. That is my first point. The second point to which I wish to direct the attention of the government is that the city of Vancouver is the fourth city in Canada, and I suppose that in that city there are approximately a thousand government employees, and yet it is not on this list at all. Now the two things indicate what I have complained of on frequent occasions and that is that as British Columbia is, in mailing distance to and fro, nearly two weeks away from Ottawa, it is almost hopeless for a candidate to get in on this examination. I have asked on previous occasions and would like to reiterate the request to-day that, a notice be sent out sufficiently early to give the candidates in distant parts of Canada-British Columbia, Alberta, the maritime provinces-ample time to file their applications. In the second place, I assert that surely a city of the importance of Vancouver should be on the list of places where examinations are to be held.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: This is not a matter for the Post Office Department at all. It is a subject which is entirely under the control of the Civil Service Commission. They fix the dates, they inform us, and we send out the notices; but I may add that because Vancouver is not on the list does not say that examinations will not be held in that city. A similar notice was issued by the Civil Service Commission last week for the province of Quebec, and my attention was drawn to the fact that neither the city of Quebec nor the city of Montreal was mentioned there. I took the matter up with the commission, and they informed me that the fact that the cities of Montreal and Quebec were not mentioned in the list did not mean that examinations would not be held there; examinations will be held in those cities at another date to be fixed by them, the same thing applies to the city of Vancouver.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the Postmaster General will permit me I should like to say that the names of New Westminster, Prince Rupert and Nanaimo are mentioned with Victoria.


Peter John Veniot: Vancouver stands in a class by itself.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not complaining of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. What I am complaining of is the short period of time that is allowed.


Peter John Veniot: I will call the attention of
the Civil Service Commission to the fact that they have not given sufficient time in this instance.
IMr, Stevens.]



TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: Will any legislation be introduced this year for the purpose of making permanent civil servants who are now employed under the Soldier Settlement Board and in some of the other departments, who have served for a period of from seven to nine years, whose case has, I think, been dealt with by order in council in the past with the intention of making them permanent, but as regards whom no legislation has been introduced in parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The matter to which my
hon. friend has just referred has received some consideration by the government, but a decision has not yet been reached. The government does not propose at the present session to enlarge the legislative programme any more than is absolutely necessary, but the matter to which my hon. friend refers is an important one and will receive further consideration.


John Arthur Clark: I would like to point out
that these men are debarred from taking advantage of the pension to which other civil servants are entitled under present conditions.



PRIVILEGE-MR. EVANS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I wish
to contradict a statement in the Saskatoon Daily Star, of Saturday ,March 5, purporting to give an account of the proceedings of the railway committee on March 4. The statement in question reads:
The bill authorizing the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway to construct a line in central Saskatchewan, was reported by the railways and canals committee of the Commons to-day. The company is owned by tile Canadian Pacific Railway and was originally planned to run from Theodore to or near Duval.
The statement to which I take exception is this:
John Evans, Rosetown. said the proposed construction was not needed. The two main lines already served the territory adequately.
That is an absolute misrepresentation. I never used these words or any others that could be construed into that meaning. The whole thing is an utter falsehood.



IMMIGRATION PUBLICITY


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day.
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: 
Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: 
Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has not quite caught the point. I would like to know if the minister or his department or the government as a whole is taking any steps to see to it that these steamship companies are not making applications for permits until they actually have employment for the intending immigrant.


Robert Forke: Steamship companies are not making nominations of intending immigrants. No steamship company is being granted nominations.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: The Minister of Immigration has stated, twice to-day and once before, that these men would be admitted to Canada provided that they were nominated by someone in this country. Has the government taken any steps to ascertain the bona fides of the nominations, because in many cases I am sure these people are acting for other parties.


Robert Forke: The department has taken a great deal of care to find out the bona fides of those who have made the nominations.


James Arthurs: What has been the result?


Robert Forke: Oh, well.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Is the government prepared to give residents of Canada opportunities equal to those of people who are brought into this country?


Robert Forke: I would say absolutely.



PENSIONS FOR POSTMASTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. F. P. QUINN (Halifax):: I would like to ask the Postmaster General if any provision is made for pensions for postmasters who have been retired from the service, particularly for those who have served as postmasters for ten years and upwards.


Peter John Veniot: If they are retired under the act, there is provision for pensions for them. There is no provision as regards those who are not retired under the act.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) :: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is for the second reading of Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, and to this motion the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) has moved an amendment which will virtually kill the bill. It practically means the six months' hoist. The amendment reads:
That all the -words after the word "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The character and object of this bill involve matters of grave national and provincial _ importance, and are such as to constitute it a measure of public policy which ought not to be dealt with by any private bill.
When the Red lake bill was before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines last session, we were told by the chairman of the committee and by the Railway department of the government that the
Georgian Bay Canal Company

House having accepted the principle of the proposed legislation on the second reading of the bill, virtually all the committee had to decide was whether the application, the preamble and the different sections of the bill were within the power of this parliament. On the second reading of a bill the British practice is referred to in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 130, section 511:
The second reading of a bill is that stage when it is proper to enter into a discussion and propose a motion relative to the principle of the measure.
Section 513 states:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
Therefore, under the rules of this House and the British practice the proper place to discuss the question of the principle of a bill is on the second reading. The following is stated in the .13th edition of May's Parliamentary Procedure at page 709. The leader of the opposition quoted this the other evening in his address:
The second reading of a private bill, corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the House affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure.
This is one of the most important bills ever brought before parliament. It involves the whole future of the power rights of this province. The granting of this charter would hand over to the Sifton interests the whole industrial future, not only of the Ottawa valley, but of new Ontario. This is not a private bill, Mr. Speaker. If ever there was a public bill to graft the public resources of this country from the people, it is this particular iniquitous Sifton bill. Talk of the Chicago diversion of water being a steal, as some newspapers do; why, that is simply a small affair compared with this gigantic grab bill, to steal the water-powers of the Ottawa valley and northern Ontario. From the western boundary of Quebec right up to the Nipigon river all the water-powers have been grabbed by private interests, and nobody knows what rates they are charging for domestic power. The Ottawa valley is rich in lumber, water-powers and mines, but all these great resources have been handed over to private capital and private greed and the 
whole industrial life of the Ottawa valley has been stagnant for a great many years because of the hand-out of these magnificent resources, the natural heritage of the Ottawa valley, to American millionaires.
The other evening some Toronto men could find no sleeping accommodation in Ottawa. I would suggest that they utilize the front benches across the way. We have had sleepers there on the six or seven occasions on which this bill has been before the House. What is the policy of the government in regard to this bill? Can the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) tell me what it is? Can the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) tell me what it is? The Sifton interests are down here trying to claim all these magnificent resources, and this House would like to know what the policy of the government is. This is not a private bill; by no stretch of the imagination can it be called a private bill. It seeks to give away a whole kingdom of resources to private greed. Would you call that a private bill? I say no.
The amendment that has been moved by the leader of the opposition is quite in accordance with the rules of the House. The leader of the opposition is friendly towards the public-owned light and power system in the province of Ontario, and a vote for his amendment will be a vote against the attitude of simply standing idly by while the resources of this country are being plundered and handed over to private interests. I submit -that the principle involved in this bill raises the largest question of public policy' which this parliament will have to discuss probably during its life, and yet this bill is being made a political football.
This charter was first granted in the days of Queen Victoria. It survived -through the reigns of three sovereigns, Queen Victoria, King Edward and King George. It has survived under nine prime ministers, and has been before nine different parliaments since 1894. We did not hear much about it, though, until a few years ago, and everybody thought that the bill had been decently buried, after the fashion of -the Newmarket canal in the constituency which the Prime Minister represented a few years ago. I have in my hand, Mr. Speaker, a list of the statutes, fourteen in all, which have been passed by this House respecting this particular franchise. The first one was in 1894, and a large body of the rank aPd file of the Liberal party in the city of Ottawa, are named as the incorporators. There are ninety-nine of them, just about as many as in the committee of one hundred. After a while, eighty-five of them thought they had better drop out, and

Georgian Bay Canal Company
then fourteen remained. They went from strength, to strength; they found every successive railway committee easier than the last, and what has the result been? The whole Ottawa valley has been stagnant 'commercially and industrially. Why? Because of the absence of cheap light and power, because of the absence of direct current, because of the giving away to political favourites of the magnificent heritage of this territory.
The situation in the Ottawa valley reminds me of the situation in the province of Nova Scotia where, during thirty-four years of Liberal rule, all the great natural resources of that magnificent province, its timber wealth, its mines and its water-powers were given away to private greed. The Liberals gave away the resources of that province just like Santa Claus handing out presents from a Christmas tree, with the result that the maritime provinces got into such a condition that a royal corn-mission had to be appointed, and we now have the Duncan report before us recommending subsidies and subventions to help make up to the province what they lost by this continual hand-out of its resources.
The time to kill this bill is here and now. A few years ago it might have been called simply an obnoxious bill; but to-day, in view of the $104,000,000 that has been spent on the deepening of the Welland canal and the hundreds of millions invested in the National Railways-in view of the proposed improvements to the St. Lawrence waterway, in view of the several routes our western provinces now have to the seaboard, in view of the changed conditions and the opening of the Panama canal, this bill is not simply obnoxious; it is a scandal. I do not think I can do better than quote from an editorial in last Saturday's Toronto Globe, pleading with the government of the day to come forward and declare what 'their policy is regarding this particular bill. It says:
There is practically unanimity of opinion in this province, judging from the expressions of newspapers, on the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Company. The press -Liberal, Conservative and Independent- evidently believes that the bill which is designed to renew the franchise of this corporation should be killed. It is not a question of politics, but of business-of public business-whether a large provincial asset should be handed over to a private body for development and exploitation at public expense.
This opinion has also been expressed in a resolution adopted unanimously by the Ontario legislature and presented and read by the Speaker in the House of Commons.
No doubt remains as to Ontario's attitude, and there should be no doubt as to its reception
at Ottawa. The policy of this Province in power development is established. The fact that more and more power is needed for public service is well known, and Ontario has more than 50 per cent interest in the water right* which the bill before parliament proposes to give away. It shares with Quebec the power rights of the Ottawa, but from Mattawa west the territory involved is wholly within this province. Therefore Ontario's view should be fully respected in the Federal parliament.
But there is a moral responsibility which transcends the constitutional right. Why should the federal parliament for a moment consider turning over to private interests public property with a potential value of hundreds of millions of dollars? On the face, of it, it would be a clear gift of perpetually increasing financial importance-giving away the last remaining natural resource, and one of which the people are in most urgent need.
The amazing thing is that the federal government sits idly by and permits this bill to take up the time of the House, to go through debating periods and to go to a committee for consideration. What is there to consider? Whether the people should be robbed of a large part of their heritage or not? Can there be two answers to the question?
True, as the Globe has said, this is a private bill, and the government is not technically obliged to commit itself for or against. But is the government responsible to the voters and to its conscience only for its own measures?
If vicious legislation is passed in the House it will be with the aid of the government votes. This is vicious legislation. The government has a clear majority, an authority handed to it by the electors in order that it might be responsible for the laws enacted. There will be no way of evading responsibility if, through disinterestedness, or, worse still, government connivance, the Georgian bay bill is passed and this long-standing charter is renewed.
A lot of water has passed down the Ottawa since this franchise was first granted. The proposed canal looked more like a public convenience and public necessity than it does today. But the reverse is emphatically the case with regard to water-power. The wording of the charter-at no time safeguarding the public -has taken on new significance in a generation. And the point of view of the public has changed accordingly-at least in Ontario. The government cannot afford to ignore this. It should have thrown its weight against the bill at the start, and it should not allow more time to be wasted on legislation which is wrong in principle and in purpose.
After referring to the number of letters which they had received relating to this matter they go on to say;
Perhaps it may be well once again to make the position of the Globe clear. It takes no orders from would-be party managers, "practical" politicians or profit-seeking promoters. Its liberalism is of the old-fashioned, independent George Brown school, which seems sometimes to be getting out of date at Ottawa. It still deems it the duty of a national newspaper to support those policies which it believes are in the public interest, and to fight, if necessary, for those principles which it is con-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
vinced should dominate in the consideration of public affairs. It still subscribes to the apparently antiquated theory that the natural resources of the country are the heritage of all the citizens. And it still regards the welfare of the whole people as more important than the avaricious ambitions of a few.
I think it is time that the Prime Minister rose and told the House what the policy of the government is regarding this particular hand-out bill. As the measure comes before this honourable House it would appear that the Ottawa valley and the fulness thereof, including the water-powers and all that dwell therein, belong to the Siftons. When you give away the water-powers of the Ottawa district you give away the keys of the Ottawa valley and the keys of the district along the Quebec boundary up to the Nipigon river. Why should the people give to private interests a great heritage such as this, which will produce immense wealth in the near future to those who will have control of it? Why should they hand over these privileges to private greed and gain? This province has received great benefits by having public ownership, and why should we allow our profitable resources to be taken away from us in the future?
The Dominion government has jurisdiction only over navigation. I raised this point on the debate on the 7th of April last, when dealing with the rights of the provinces in their fields of activity under the British North America Act. Sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act deal with this subject. The matter came up in debate on a resolution I introduced in the House on the 7th of April last regarding the water-powers at Morrisburg on the St. Lawrence. Hon. members will find on page 2192 of Hansard that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) admitted my contention. I described the field of activity as between the province and the Dominion with reference to jurisdiction of the province over the water-powers and the jurisdiction of the Dominion over navigable streams. The jurisdiction of the Dominion government is defined in the act which gives to the Dominion the control of the navigable streams so far as navigation is concerned, and to the province the right in regard to the water-powers. The Minister of the Interior admitted that my point of law was well taken and accurately set out as described in Hansard. If that is so, this particular bill should be ruled out on these two grounds.
I doubt if the government has the power to pass the power clauses of this bill. This particular measure is ninety-nine and nine-tenths per cent a power proposition and one-tenth of one per cent a canal proposition. It is as
IMr. Church ]
great a joke as the construction of the Newmarket canal was. It is a great pity that Gilbert and Sullivan are not alive to-day so that they could write a comic opera dealing with the Ottawa valley, this canal, the Siftons and the hand-outs of these great power rights; if we had all the facts brought out today the people of the province would know who was behind this particular piece of legislation. The gentlemen who are behind it seem to be of opinion that the water-powers of the Ottawa valley have been placed where they are by providence for the purpose of making millionaires out of Sir Clifford Sifton and his dependents and inheritors. That seems to be their feeling-that the Ottawa valley is not for the people of the province of Quebec and the province of Ontario, but is a hand-out for these particular favorites. Mussolini would make short work of the Siftons and their issues, and would soon abolish this noxious piece of legislation. We have nothing in Canada like this knight who would grab the water-powers of the Ottawa valley. The wealth of this great country is for the people. As Mussolini has said " a country does not belong to those who inhabit it to-day. It is an inheritance from the past, a possession for the present, and a trust for the future." That is the manner in which it was regarded by Sir Adam Beck. He treated the water-powers and the resources of the province as a sacred trust along the lines of the philosophy of that great man Mussolini. Here we have an attempt to have reissued a thirty-three year old charter, and here we have a chance for the representatives in parliament to do something, and to tell us on which side of the question they stand, whether they stand1 for public rights, or for private rights and private plunder. It has got to be one thing or the other. We cannot blow hot and cold on this bill. We must take our stand on the second reading.
Sir Adam Beck said that private monopoly of our public utilities would never make Ontario great and prosperous. His words still hold true. On this piece of legislation the stand of the Conservative party in this House is "No surrender!" I hope that will also be the stand of the Progressive party and of many members of the Liberal party. I do not see the Minister of Customs (Mr. Euler) or the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm) in the House. They represent two of the greatest hydro counties in Ontario. Where do they stand on this bill? I hope before the vote is taken they will tell the people of Ontario whether or not they ap-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
prove of the principle of handing over to a private monopoly the canal and power rights on the Ottawa river. The continued development of Ontario's power resources under public ownership will make the province wealthy. The power rights on the Ottawa river belong to Ontario and Quebec and they should1 not be handed over to a lot of hungry millionaires who wish to put through this honourable House their get-rich-quick scheme by securing control of the immense power rights on the Ottawa river under the guise of promising to construct a canal.
It is a very simple matter to dissect this bill and get down to its basic principles. In the first place, if it is practicable to construct the proposed canal the undertaking should not be passed over to these promoters to be exploited for private gain; it should be built by the people in the same way as we dealt with the St. Lawrence canal, the Welland canal, the Trent canal-and the Newmarket canal of blessed memory! Consequently, as a canal feature, all the Dominion is concerned about is that navigation be not interfered with by any power projects that may be undertaken by Ontario and Quebec. But as for navigation, there is very little apparent [DOT]on the canal that now passes by the Chateau -only a load of sand goes through now and again. As a matter of fact, however, the canal project is being used by Sir Clifford Sifton and others purely as a smoke screen- to divert our attention from their acquisition of the million horse-power which the renewal of this charter would enable them to develop for exportation to the United States. That is what I may term the incidental feature of the bill. But the power rights on the Ottawa river are outside the jurisdiction of this parliament altogether and vest entirely in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
This bill should never be allowed to go to the railway committee. This is the proper place to kill it. At the present time, due to shortage of power, eastern Ontario is suffering *greater economic ills than any other part of the province, and before many months pass we may find it necessary to have something along the lines of the Dunoan report applied to Ontario. For instance, the streets of this city are the worst kept in winter that you will find in any centre of the same size throughout the Dominion. This part of the province has been away behind the times in linking up with the cheap light and power movement that has done so much for the Peterborough district, the Niagara district, and the district of western Ontario. In that territory you will see the tremendous growth,
industrially and otherwise, that has followed the boon of cheap light and power under public control. Unfortunately for eastern Ontario the people did not have confidence in the hydro-electric movement and tied themselves up to private ownership, with the result that they 'are being exploited to-day by private monopoly and are suffering severely for their mistake.
What happened in new Ontario along these lines? The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson) last week blamed the Hydro Electric Commission for the condition of affairs in that territory where the Abitibi company has a monopolistic control. But the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken. The people of northern Ontario are suffering for their lack of faith in Sir Adam Beck, who was anxious to give them the benefits of cheap light and power under public ownership. I was delighted to hear the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) proclaim in this House that the only means of safeguarding Canada and preserving our unity with the British Empire was the adoption of a strong national policy. What Sir Adam Beck did provincially could and should be developed along national lines. As I said before, from the Quebec boundary west to Nipigon, including the new Ontario district, all the water-powers, pulp limits and mines have passed into the control of American millionaires. Had Sir Adam Beck been allowed to electrify the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway as he proposed, all the country referred to by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie would to-day be enjoying the benefits that always result from the public ownership and operation of our great natural resources, and instead of only 30,000 there would be a population of 300,000, and the mineral development would have been increased proportionately, with no unemployment problem. That is what public ownership would have done for that particular territory. Thus Sir Clifford Sifton and his associates now want to deprive the eastern part of Ontario and the Ottawa valley of the benefits of cheap light and power.
I oppose the principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, on the ground of public policy. If the proposed canal is to be built the government should build it. As for the power rights, they belong to the two provinces, subject only to the right of navigation vested in the Dominion. This charter was first granted thirty-three years ago, it has been renewed from time to time, and being now down and out it should not be again revived. In a word, the promoters should no longer be allowed to play
11R4
Georgian Bay Canal Company

with the franchise. This should not be a party question at all. Rightly viewed it is purely an economic and a patriotic question. Therefore I appeal to the members of the cabinet to make the action of this House unanimous, in the same way as Premier Ferguson, Mr. Sinclair, and Mr. Raney did in the Ontario House. These promoters are so many hungry adventurers. The time has come for this House and the government to lay down a Canadian hydro-electric policy suited to the whole Dominion. Canada can not get along without such a policy, and we should1 have had it long ago in order that this great heritage might be preserved for the benefit of the nation.
The industrial future of this country depends almost entirely upon a sound policy in regard to its water-powers. The complete collapse of government in Canada was never better illustrated than it has been in the manner in which this charter has been dealt with in this House. The government has failed to deal with this problem, and the scheme now before parliament is ninety per cent a power proposition, and not one for the construction of a canal. Sir Clifford Sifton and those associated with him have been haunting these legislative halls for years now and they have done nothing in the way of canal construction. All they have done has been to hold the territory in the Ottawa valley to the exclusion of everybody else. They refused to allow Sir Adam Beck to enter it on the ground that it was their special prerogative. The Ottawa valley was their camping ground. Last year it was the Red lake grab; this session it is the Ottawa valley. It is time for every member of the House of Commons who has the interests of the country at heart to protest against handing over to a private concern such as this the rights of the people at large. The question is, have we or have we not government of the people, by the people and for the people, or government for the Siftons and their dependents?
In view of the way in which these people have disregarded their obligations under this charter, which has been renewed so many times, and having regard to what the hydroelectric has done for Ottawa, I am surprised that any member representing 'this city should introduce so objectionable a piece of legislation as the bill now before us, the result of which would be to jeopardize the vast investment of the people of this province amounting to some $250,000,000, in the hydroelectric, which has supplied light and power on such very low terms. I know something of the Ottawa valley and of the politicians

of both parties, and I can understand why they want to keep the hydro-electric movement out of this territory. I have not the slightest doubt that Sir Clifford Sifton has the support of the government in this matter,, for when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was in Atlantic City he was met by Sir Clifford; and in view of the silence of the 'government it is to be presumed that an understanding has been arrived at. If the government has not given its promise to-Sir Clifford Sifton to lend him support in getting this legislation put through the House,. I am prepared to give way now to any member of the administration to get up and say so. Let somebody on the government aide-stand up and declare the government's policy in regard to this question. Is if the intention of government supporters to stand by the principle of public ownership of these water-powers, or have they decided, in consequence of some favour shown by Sir Clifford! Sifton to the party opposite, to surrender this heritage to a private concern for its own advantage? I trust that before the day is far spent the government will come forward! and tell the .House just what its policy is.
This bill not only interferes with federal rights; it encroaches upon provincial and' municipal ground. It is subversive of these rights. This is the most reactionary measure, ever submitted to parliament, and if it is-allowed to go through this House it will prove pretty cositly to the people. These -promoters have been engaged in nothing else except promotion; they have not the slightest intention of ever constructing a canal. If' this charter were extended five hundred years-the canal would not be built. The canal is nothing but a myth; it is a huge joke. Why, they might as well ask this parliament to pass a measure to facilitate the transportation of the grain crop of western Canada by an air-route as to expect to have anything done by Sir Clifford Sifton and his associates in the-way of constructing this canal. The whole-scheme is one for the exploitation of the water-power resources of the province; that is all it is. And eastern -Canada is made the goat. Eastern Canada, I say, is the goat in this matter and will continue to be the goat so long as we-have sitting -opposite hon. gentlemen who are not only ready to promote bills of this sort but to give them their earnest support. The promoters of this scheme have treated this parliament with contempt. They have disregarded their solemn contract in every one of the fourteen charters which they have been, given. They have treated these charters as mere scraps of paper; they are nothing but hungry political adventurers who are-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
ready to seize upon the water-powers of the province which are the property of the people. Where are Sir Adam Beck's friends to-day? He has been dead only a short while and where are his friends now? Every member of the legislature of Ontario is opposed to the extension of this charter, but where in this House is the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler)? Where is the hon. member for Noitth Bruce (Mr. Mialcolm)? Both these gentlemen are members of the cabinet, and what have they to say in defence of the interests of the province which they 'represent? And where are the members of the United Farmers of Ontario to-day? Where does the Liberal party in the province stand on this question, and whait is the policy of the Prime Minister of the country? I say, Mr. Speaker, without any hesitation whatever, that when the time comes and a showdown is demanded it will be found that this government has been lined up, as it always has been, behind the Sifton interests.
Why should this parliament be concerned about Sir Clifford Sifton and his interests? What has Sir Clifford Sifton ever done for the country? Sir Clifford Sifton has never built anything except a title for himself. That is the only thing he has ever built up-that is the extent of his constructive ability: he has been able to accumulate a sword and spurs and epaulets and so forth. That is the sum total of his constructive genius. He was at the head of the Conservation commission which spent hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money, and what did he do? When a resolution was introduced into this parliament for the purpose of establishing a national coal supply policy he indulged in a good deal of talk about a national coal supply for the people; that was his slogan, while at the same time he was masquerading in the old country, endeavouring to interest the financiers there in his own schemes. In view of the success which Sir Adam Beck has made of the hydroelectric in Ontario Sir Clifford Sifton was anxious to grab this million horse-power for himself and his friends, and then he went over to the United States and England where he tried to get financial backing. It does not seem to concern him whether the resources of this province are exploited by foreign money and the profits taken to enrich outsiders. Ontario's great adventure in public ownership will succeed; there is not the Slightest doubt about that. It is the duty of members of this House to see to it that no private concern such as this shall be allowed to develop the
water-powers of the province of Ontario which belong to the people.
I very much regret the fact that there is another bill to come before parliament of a most obnoxious character, a bill equally as undesirable as this. I refer to the Gatineau bill, which I oppose on the same grounds as I do this. I suppose the Gatineau contract will be commended by some politicians, but for my own part I am absolutely opposed to it. Sir Adam Beck was not more than a week in his grave when the Toronto Financial Post declared war on the hydro in these words: _ Beck died at the height of a public ownership movement that swept him into the position of power and mastery that no other man in Canada has held. The liydr.o will likely disintegrate as a single institution into a number of smaller corporations, some publicly, and in time, many privately owned, but all linked in a superpower chain.
The process has already begun. The first step in that process is the Gatineau power contract. When I mention the Gatineau power contract I do not wish to be imputing blame to Sir Adam Beck's successor or to his colleagues on the Hydro Electric Power Commission. These men-C. A. Magrath, C. Alfred Maguire and Hon. R. J. Cooke-are the victims of circumstances, and are not to blame. When the time comes I will deal with the authors of these circumstances. We will show where the responsibility lies, because for the past fifteen years every time Adam Beck tried to get into the Ottawa valley and eastern Ontario to establish a power development he was beaten back by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Hon. Geo. P. Graham and the present Liberal leaders when the Liberals were in power and by Hon. Frank Cochrane, and Sir Robert Borden when the Conservatives were in power. Adam Beck was left to fight alone for a public power development in eastern Ontario without any help from the Ontario legislature. As to Colonel MacLean of the Financial Post, I have the utmost respect for that gentleman. He knows more about the situation in the Ottawa valley and the objects of the Sifton bill than anybody else I know of. He has fought Adam Beck and his Ontario power policies in season and out of season.
He made the Toronto Financial Post in the weekly press of Canada all that the Toronto Mail and Empire and the Toronto Daily Star have proved themselves to be in the antihydro daily press of Canada. But it is to the credit of Colonel John Bayne MacLean that the Financial Post never hounded Adam Beck as the Toronto Star and the Mail and Empire hounded him to the grave with their
Georgian Bay Canal Company

own despicable eight-column headlines over the slanderous ravings of an ingrate private secretary. I could wish when Sir Adam Beck's successor is being shown honours by the university of Toronto that that institution had recognized its greatest friend, the man who did more than any dozen men in Canada to provide careers for the graduates of the School of Practical Science. I sometimes wish that the university had recognized Adam Beck when he was alive, and cheered his heart with some recognition of his valuable work.
I heard it said that Adam Beck made enemies. A man who stands up against such plunder as that contemplated by this bill and tries to promote the public interest will make enemies. I do hope Adam Beck's successor will follow so closely in Adam Beck's footsteps that he will make some of the enemies Adam Beck made. If he continues the work Adam Beck began we will applaud him, and he will get applause from the common people.
Where does the Liberal party stand' in connection with this particular matter? What is parliament for? Does it exist for the purpose of making Canada a land of milk and honey for the Siftons and their successors? It was said in the newspapers that Sir Clifford Sifton's sons supported the Mackenzie King government in the late election. That is true and one of them ran as a Liberal candidate in the constituency of North York. In return for their services they may or may not have obtained some promises from the Liberal party; as to that time will tell. Is the country obligated to make a millionaire out of Sir Clifford Sifton because of what he has done for the Liberal party? I should like to find out where the Liberal party stands in this particular transaction. When the Grand Trunk Pacific bill was introduced and pressed forward one of the cries raised in connection with it was that "Cox can't wait". In the case of the present project we have a repetition of that cry only the central figure has been changed. It is not the late Senator Cox but Sir Clifford Sifton that can't wait. However, he will have to wait a long time before he gets this bill through; he will have to wait until doomsday. It is going to be talked out on many occasions. Our policy on this side is "no surrender." These important water-powers, involving the development of a million horse-power are not going to be surrendered to the Siftons who are in alliance with great financial interests in the United States with only a smoke screen between them. The Ottawa valley is rich in timber, minerals and water-powers. Even Solomon in all his glory

will not ibe arrayed like unto the Siftons -if they could secure the control of these great resources. Can you not imagine Sir Clifford Sifton, if this bill were to succeed, ascending to some elevated point and saying: Behold my kingdom and my vast possessions? If the bill is allowed to pass I predict that the rates for commercial and domestic lighting will be three times what they ought to be. The policy adopted by the Conservative government of Ontario under the late Sir James Whitney was that these water-powers belonged to the state and not to private individuals. They should be developed for the benefit of the farmer and the toiler in the factory and the intention was by means of this policy to build up a united province in Ontario.
Sir Henry Thornton refused to intervene on behalf of the public when it was proposed to alienate the Red lake district. What is he doing to-day in connection with this particular matter? What is the policy of the government and what is the policy of the board of management of the National railway? Noibody seems to know what their policy is. We do know however that when a radial railway by-law in the interest of Toronto and several counties of Ontario -was being voted on, Sir Henry Thornton intervened as an opponent of public ownership.
These counties wanted cheap light and power and radials for the Niagara district. They wanted a transportation system as well. Sir Henry Thornton sent a telegram to destroy that particular work under public ownership. When he comes down to the Ottawa valley, he is prepared to surrender the valley all through new Ontario and the Mattawa river, for what? For private greed and gain, and he does not utter a whisper against this particular piece of legislation. He was the same person who surrendered half of the Port Colbome district to the Canadian Pacific. The more I think of all these hand-outs to American millionaires, the more I survey this particular bill No. 78, the more I think it is a good thing that Labrador was handed over to Newfoundland. It is a good thing that Canada did not get it, because we might have given it away to the Siftons or American millionaires. It will now be developed for the good of the people of the British Empire and not for the welfare of a number of millionaires who come over here and enlist the sympathy of the Liberal party. I am opposed to this bill on grounds of public policy. The proposed bill and every part and parcel of it is nothing but a screen to hand over this whole valley to

Georgian Bay Canal Company
the super-power trusts of the United States. The canal is only a back-door scheme that will blind nobody, a smoke screen, as I say, to prevent the consideration of the true merits of the bill.
We, were told the other night by one or two hon. gentlemen opposite: Oh, we will not pass this bill in this particular form; we will amend it when it comes to the committee, giving the railway commission power to regulate rates. Did hon. members ever hear of the railway commission regulating anything? I will give an illustration of what they do, because it is only by comparison that we can get at the merits of the case. What were we told by two or three members from Saskatchewan, which pays about one per cent of the taxes of Canada? They do not care in that province who pays the taxes. They are protectionists when it comes to their own interests, but free traders when they come to do anything to aid the industrial provinces. Where do they stand to-day? They are supporting the Sifton interests and attacking public ownership. They would like to see the water-powers, the resources of this country owned and controlled by private interests, handed over to American millionaires. The Liberal party have ceded more territory, to American millionaires than was ceded by King George III one hundred and fifty or so'years ago. They say, let us pass the second reading and when the bill goes to committee we will amend it with reference to the water-powers, putting them under public control, which is a myth.
Let me give the House an example of the way in which the railway commission regulates matters. An application was made for an increase in telephone rates and the application was based on removal of discrimination. What did the government do? The railway commission granted the increase, but they left the government out of it. The government recently made a contract by which they do not pay the increase at all. The increase which the government should pay is thus passed on to the private consumers of the telephone service. The same condition obtains in the case with the National railways. A million dollars was spent in extensions at Montreal for the benefit of the Canadian National Railways, but they pay no increase at all. This increase is saddled on to the poor ratepayers of Ontario and Quebec and the government sponge on the working classes to pay their bills.
Ontario has suffered more economic ills than any other province since confederation, and the time has come for Ontario to have a Duncan report. No village council would listen to this bill for five minutes and suffer
such arguments as we have heard around this House regarding this particular piece of legislation. The railway commission will do nothing; it has done nothing to regulate freight rates, passenger rates, telegraph rates, express rates, except to surrender the territory to the applicants. If branch lines, which are so dear to the hearts of hon. gentlemen who come from Saskatchewan, were built, according to the law of supply and demand, there would be no branch lines built, not even the Hudson Bay railway; but when it comes to a matter of handing over a million horse-power to private interests, the private interests get it.
If this is a political bill for the purpose of paying a political debt to the gentlemen who are promoting it, it is the duty of the government to say so. I have nothing but the utmost respect for Sir Clifford Sifton and Sir Herbert Holt. I do not blame them at all for what they propose. If governments are so easy that they are going to hand over all these resources, I do not blame Sir Clifford Sifton and the people with him being smart and clever enough to get this particular bill before the House and the country. I have always been a supporter of public ownership and as long as I have been a member of this House I have stood for that principle. It was stated in this House by inference the other night that, the applicants were prepared to drop the bill, provided the government would reimburse what had been spent, say several millions, for the goodwill and what they call vested rights, because no canal has been built. If that is so, I hope the government will say so. It is said also that the Holt interests and the Sifton interests are identical. Well, they all look alike to me, because they are all trying to grab something for themselves and private ownership. The difference between the one and the other is the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
It was said in this House by hon. gentlemen opposite and also during the elections of 1925 and 1926 by the Prime Minister in North York, that those who sit on this side of the House were the party of the big interests; that the Conservative party in this House were linked up with the big interests. I speak for myself, and I believe I speak for those who sit on this side of the House when I say that we oppose this bill on principle because we stand for the principle of the public control of the water-powers and other resources of this country, and we serve no big interests. Some of us suffered in the battle against the big interests in this country on former occasions, and we are prepared to

Georgian Bay Canal Company
suffer again in standing for the principle for which we have fought so long. This particular bill will soon show where the Liberal party stands in regard to the matter and what alliance, if any, they have with the big interests. It will show whether the government serves and continues to serve those interests which they charge hon. gentlemen on this side of the House with serving.
I have served the hydro-movement since its inception in 1901. I was an officer of the hydro-municipalities and president of the Ontario Municipal Electric Association. I was Sir Adhm Beck's first lieutenant in Ontario for several years and I stand by these principles party or no party. Unplaced, umpen-sioned, no man's heir or slave. I neither look for nor care for honour or the patronizing approval of any party as far as this obnoxious piece of legislation goes. There is only one consolation for a public man, and that is the approval of his own conscience, a sense of duty done. All I am here for is to do my duty to my constituents and to the 278 hydro-municipalities of Ontario who have invested $262,000,000 for the purpose of conserving for the people of that province the boon of cheap light and power. I serve them and nobody else. I will not knowingly and conscientiously offend any man cither by word or deed, but I will stand by the principles of public rights as I see them, which I have supported for twenty-five years in the province of Ontario. But if I am placed in the position of having to defend these principles and must speak, I will speak what ,1 at heart believe to be the truth, moderately,' kindly, temperately, but yet plainly, and will call a spade a spade, as I have done 'here this afternoon. Whatever my lot or fortune for the balance of my life may be and whether I may be a member of this parliament again or not, I will labour on for the promotion of the principles of public ownership and control and for the advancement of those principles for which my late beloved leader, Sir Adam Beck, and Sir James Whitney lived and died. For those principles of public ownership and public control of the resources of this country, and for the advancement of those principles which are to-day accepted by the people of Ontario as an axiom, I will labour to serve the truest and best interests of the Conservative party as I see them. But while I wear the party uniform, I will never wear its plush. I will take my position among the rank and file, however humble it may be, but it will be as a volunteer, and not as a "flunkey."
Sir Adam Beck, being dead, yet speaketh to the people of Ontario, and of Canada and 
the British Empire, on this power question of the Ottawa valley, as he did from 1915 on to 1918, and again in 1921, when we were here opposing this bill. I remember being here with Sir Adam Beck and being howled down in the railway committee three or four times. We appeared before the railway committee and before the cabinet in an effort to get rid of this bill. Sir Adam Beck was a protectionist of the protectionists, and the most constructive statesman the country has produced. His work in Ontario stands out as one of the most marvellous achievements of the age. Here is his report in regard to this particular project, and how anybody who has any respedt for public rights can vote for this particular bill after reading this report which Sir Adam Beck made to the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario about the economic ills of the Ottawa valley right up through to new Ontario, I cannot understand. Sir Adam Beck makes the statement that this bill had another objectionable feature, the feature with regard to the export of power. I doubt if Sir Clifford Sifton would ever have had anything to do with this bill but for the export privileges which the charter confers. This is what Sir Adam Beck says in this report:
At the present time the citizens of Ontario and, in fact, the citizens of Canada are confronted with a most serious menace to their future development and general welfare. It is exceedingly regrettable that the efforts being made to re-establish Canadian business on a firm and satisfactory basis should be nullified by the attempt to alienate the basic necessity of low-cost hydro-electric power. And yet this is what is being done.
In my judgment, no government in Canada can stand against the opposition of the public opinion that will be expressed by the people of the provinces of Ontario and of Quebec once it is fully appreciated what sacrifice of their interests is involved in the lease proposed for the Carillon water-power development on the Ottawa river, involving, as it does, the right to export electrical energy to the United States under circumstances which, heretofore, have not existed. The copy of the proposed Carillon agreement that I have been able to go over contains conditions that are scandalous.
Hon. gentlemen may think I have used strong language, but Sir Adam Beck says that the proposed Carillon agreement "contains conditions that are scandalous." He goes on:
The chief feature of the menace to the citizens of Canada to which I refer is the definite and concerted effort to break down the safeguard Canadians now have under 'the Dominion law and regulations relating to the exportation of electricity. As these restrictions now stand, applicants for the exportation of electricity to the United States must take out a yearly license and it has been definitely stipulated that if Canada should require the electricity that is

Georgian Bay Canal Company
temporarily being exported, it must be returned for Canadian use as and when required. This provision for the taking out of a yearly export license was made in 1907 by the Canadian federal authorities, because the government had in view the fact that eventually all Canadian electrical energy might be required for consumption in Canada. The recent public announcement of the Prime Minister of Canada that his purpose is to discourage and to curtail the exportation of electrical energy by the imposition of the export tax, already authorized by law, is in accordance with the policy of prior governments. The tax now authorized by the government of Canada of only three one-hundredths of a cent per kilowatt-hour is not a sufficient deterrent, and the danger is that it doubtless will be used in justification of further exportation. The Ontario government, the Association of Municipal Electrical Utilities of Ontario representing the municipalities of Ontario, and the Hydro Electric Power Commission, are opposed to further exportation of electrical energy, but, if an export tax is to be the policy, then the maximum export fee of $10 per horse-power should at once be imposed and, if this is found to be insufficient, then under a modification of the statutory provisions relating to this matter a sufficiently larger export tax should be levied.
Then lie goes on to refer to this particular bill as being obnoxious, and says that the Carillon lease is being sought by the Quebec-New England Electric Corporation, which wants 400,000 horse-power:
Briefly, it may be explained that even under full development and regulation of the Ottawa river waters it is impossible to develop more than a maximum of 200,000 continuous horse power at the Carillon rapids power site. This proposal, however, is not an oversight on the part of the applicant concerns, because it has been announced through the public press that the agreement provides that any deficiency in the 400,000 horse power to meet commitments of the company-and, of course, it is obvious from the start that there will be a deficiency of at least 100 per cent-is to be made up from some other source or sources of power supply, not improbably from the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence rivers. The stakes to be won are tremendous-[DOT]
Of course, they are tremendous; otherwise Sir Clifford Sifton would not be in it.
-involving the greatest localized power assets in the world on the St. Lawrence and Niagara rivers.
The programme of expenditure as announced in conection with the company's proposed operations is of such magnitude as to attract special attention. It is proposed to expend $75,000,000, of which some $25,000,000 is to be expended in electrical transmission equipment to be installed in the United States. If the Canadian government should grant the terms asked for in the proposed lease, it is obvious that very extensive vested interests of many more millions in connection with power-using industries would be created in the United States to the preservation of which the government of Canada would be obligated.
Sir Adam Beck then goes on to refer to the imminent shortage of power in Ontario, but as that is well known I shall not quote his remarks.
Then he proceeds to lament the fact that Canada's electricity is being coveted by the super-power interests in the United States; and states how difficult it is to get the hydroelectric into the territory. He refers next to the strenuous efforts he made to get control of the water-powers and to generate for public use in Canada further supplies of electrical energy from the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers, and he says:
It is in consequence of such blocking that the commission is now being forced to provide for the generation of electricity by steam power. At the present time, an appropriation of $10,000,000 for steam-electric power has been made and within a few years this outlay will reach $25,000,000. Practically all of such expenditure would not be needed if the Hydro Electric Power Commission had been permitted to proceed with its programme of hydro-electrical development of Ontario's own water power. In view of the fact that the growth in the consumption of electrical energy, as well as other circumstances, demonstrate that a power famine is at hand, it is intolerable that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec should be placed in the position of having to defend their provincial rights against the powerful efforts being made under the pretext of national development to persuade the Dominion government to alienate the hydro-electrical assets of these provinces.
I am convinced that it will not be long, only a year or two, before the oncoming serious power shortage will be experienced-both easterly and westerly-throughout the province of Ontario. There is also a shortage of electrical energy in many parts of the United States, notably throughout the New England states and extending down the Atlantic coast to New York and Philadelphia. It has been represented by some of the United States public organizations dealing with water-power problems that the only satisfactory solution of the problem of supplying low-cost electrical power in wholesale quantities to the New England states is to receive such supply from Canada. This would foster and build up the industries in the eastern United States at the expense of those in Canada. It is not surprising, therefore, that every effort is being made to facilitate exportation of electrical energy from Canada to the United States under long-term contracts or agreements,-in fact, it has authoritatively been stated by some prominent in United States public life that the people of the United States, besides retaining control of the water-powers in their own country, should reach out to control, as extensively as possible, the water-powers in adjacent countries.
Sir Adam Beck, at page 6, says:
Carillon proposals merely part of a gigantic power program by United States interests.
Recently the New York Times commenting on what it terms the "project to link resources across the border with ours," stated that "underlying the entire plan, on which commissions represent-



Georgian Bay Canal Company
ing the United States and Canada have been working for a year or more, is an ultimate plan to pool the entire power resources of the two nations. This larger plan would involve close to $5,000,000,000 of properties and would call for grouping by territorial sections." In other words, "the ultimate plan" is seen to blanket the water-power resources of the Dominion of Canada, and the proposed export of 400,000 horse power from the Carillon development is simply the first step in carrying out this gigantic program of making Canada's water-powers the source from which electrical energy is to be permanently exported to the United States for building up the communities and industries of that country.
Then on page 8 he refers to the welfare of Ontario municipalities, especially of the Ottawa valley, and says:
That they are competent to employ the electrical energy advantageously is fully evidenced by what has been accomplished by the municipalities in their publicly-owned undertaking in which, at the present time, they have invested over $250,000,000.
He speaks of the great sacrifice and irredeemable loss involved:
I cannot too strongly emphasize the fact that the proposal in connection with the Carillon falls development is not merely the entering of the thin end of the wedge by means of a change in the law governing the exportation of electricity, but is a complete breaking down of the barrier which, heretofore, has been a reasonable, and in fact the only, safeguard to the people of Canada, serving notice annually on all users of Canadian-produced electricity that this commodity is only being exported from the country until such time as the need arises for its use in Canada and until it becomes necessary to employ the electricity for the municipal, domestic, commercial and industrial requirements of the citizens of Canada.
On pages 9 and 10, he mentions the fact that the premiers of both Ontario and Quebec are opposed to the exportation of electrical energy. On page 10 he takes -issue with the water-power policy of the federal government, and calls attention to comments made in the public press on May 27 and 28, 1925, respecting the exportation of Canadian electrical energy, with special reference to the proposed development at the Carillon power site and refers to the total possible installation for Canada as 42,000,000 horse-power. He says:
In such a total there appears to be an estimate of about 9,000,000 horse-power for the province of Ontario. No such figure can be justified in connection with any sane appraisement of the water-power that is available for economic utilization in connection with Ontario's industries. As a matter of fact, taking the international section of the St. Lawrence, the waters now available on the Niagara river, and the potentiality of the Ottawa river, there is not more than 2,500,000 horse-power available for economic purposes, and even if 20,000 second feet of water additional for Canada should be provided from Niagara's waters and 
all other unused powers that may be considered from an economic aspect in Ontario be included, the maximum figures that should be employed in deliberations involving Ontario's water-power would not exceed, say, 3,500,000 horse-power. Water-powers in the far north- such as those on rivers flowing into the Arctic ocean-are not even to be considered at the present time in competition with the highly economical water-powers of the Ottawa, the St. Lawrence and the Niagara rivers. It is, therefore, absurd to give any serious consideration to a quantity so hypothetical from an economic standpoint as the 42,000,000 horse-power for the whole of Canada, and this comment applies also to the 9,000,000 horse-power for the province of Ontario.
Then he refers to the municipalities of the two provinces and to the farmers' organizations and says he is the best friend the farmers of the country ever had. I may say that so far as this particular piece of legislation goes it should be voted down and the bill should be thrown out.
In these paragraphs we have the result of what the hydro-electric has done:
1.	Every dollar of the $160,000,000 hydro investment is earning interest and sinking fund.
2.	Hydro investment saved Ontario from a coal famine that would have bankrupted the province in war time.
3.	Hydro investment saved 2,200,000 shareholders over $75,000,000 in reduced coal, light and power bills.
4.	Hydro investment saved Ontario over $100,000,000 on coal prices, which would have gone to $30 per ton in war time but for the hydro investment that gave Ontario the equivalent of 3,000,000 tons of United States coal per annum.
That is what it did for Ontario. I observe there are a few more ministers present now. I have no objection to their help if they will give it to me.
With all due respect to the members of the cabinet, sitting on the front benches, I suggest that this is the time for some minister to arise and tell the House what the policy of the government in this matter is. Is tha Ottawa valley to be allowed for the next thirty-three years to stew in its own juice and wait to get direct current while the government take no action to solve the problem? We know what has been said about the conservation of natural resources by the Stanley Baldwin government, the Coolidge government and the governor of New York state. That great statesman, President Roosevelt, made the following statement:
The people of our country are threatened by a monopoly more powerful than has been ever seen, as it affects very closely their domestic and industrial life. Our next generation will witness a shortage of those natural resources, petroleum and gas. The price of coal will be such that hydraulic power turned into electrical energy will, owing to its cost, become the prevailing factor for transport, for manufacturers.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
for lighting and heating our towns. Our hydraulic power alone, entirely and judiciously employed, would be adequate for the present needs of transport, industries, municipalities and private individuals.
The major portion of these powers is not developed and remains the national property. It would be madness to part, without conditions, with one of our greatest resources. If we become guilty of this crime, our children will be bound to pay an annual royalty on a capitalization fixed at the highest price that the trade will stand for. They will see themselves struggling with powerful sweaters entrenched behind the doctrine of discharged rights strengthened by all means of protection that money can buy and the cunning of corporations defended by legal men. These ogres of finance will have succeeded long before then to monopolize those resources so as to be able to dictate to the people the management of their affairs and their ways of existence. Public opinion will be their least worry.
I have referred, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the Ontario legislature is unanimously opposed to this bill. In this connection the House will no doubt be interested' to hear a few of the comments by the press of Ontario on the advisability of not renewing the charter. The Globe under date of March 7, says:
The Old Fight is On Again
For thirty-three years the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company has held a Dominion charter giving it rights to construct canals and develop water-power resources of the Ottawa and French rivers. In all that time no constructive work has been done.
The company is back to Ottawa again seeking from the Dominion parliament another-the fourteenth-extension of its charter. The application is sponsored by Sifton interests.
They are back on their old stamping ground again. They found it so easy in other years, so why not come again?
The charter for which another renewal is asked apparently does not obligate the company to do anything. It gives the company continued control over public resources of tremendous potential value and permits the company to develop only those resources which it may deem profitable, while "so much of the said canals and works as then remain uncompleted"-presumably the more costly and unproductive construction and development-return to the public.
The canal is just a blind, a mere smoke screen to get the bill through and give them these valuable water-power rights. Then they will say good-bye to the canal and we shall think of the Georgian bay canal in the terms that we now think of the celebrated Newmarket canal.
The provinces of Ontario and Quebec are directly affected. The legislature of Ontario plans to record the protest of this province today. But the fight is at Ottawa. There a great principle is at stake. Shall the natural resources of this country-the property of the
32649-74J
people-be handed over to private, profit-taking promoters, or shall they be conserved and developed in the interests and for the welfare of the public?
The old battle is on once more. The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company's bill must be defeated. The charter must lapse. For the interests of the whole people come before the avaricious ambitions of a few.
That, Mr. Speaker, is from George Brown's own paper. Let me say to my hon. friends opposite that the Globe newspaper has not left the Liberal party; the Liberal party has deserted the Globe newspaper and the principles for which it stands. I see to my left two young and hon. members from the province of Nova Scotia. I know that they do not approve of the way in which millionaires have grabbed the natural resources of Nova Scotia. It is no wonder that their province needs now the measures recommended by the Duncan report. The resources of Nova Scotia were handed over for private exploitation just like Santa Claus hands presents from a Christmas tree-a present to Clifford Sifton great, a present to Clifford Sifton small, and to all the other would-be monopolists. Now it is proposed to cede the rich Ottawa valley to these exploiters of the public domain, and as a result the old Rideau canal now in front of the Chateau Laurier would become part of their canal system. The Rideau canal was built by the British government as a back door to lake Ontario after the war of 1812 had demonstrated the necessity of this project as a measure of national defence. But Sir Clifford Sifton comes in at the front door and tells the Prime Minister and his cabinet what he wants. He has been very successful in managing the government apparently in his endeavour to put this bill through the House. But he is not going to manage anybody in this part of the House because we are resolved to vote against the principle of his measure. The other evening I was told that in this city two hundred people could not find sleeping quarters. I recommended them to go and take a rest on the government front benches. The organ of George Brown has been trying to -wake the government up out of their trance so that they may tell the people where they stand on this proposed legislation.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can do better than continue this afternoon service. If any of the ministers now in their seats want to take my place I shall be quite willing to step out of the pulpit, but when they prefer slumber it is incumbent on some of us to take their place, even should we not be members of the United church. I do not happen to be a member of that church. I

Georgian Bay Canal Company
believe its organization brought about as much union as did Union government. Continuing my simile, I propose to read a sermon preached from the sanctuary of the Globe newspaper on March 2-Ash Wednesday. Apparently the editor feared that during the forty days of Lent the ministry would remain speechless on this bill. I read the Globe. It is the best morning newspaper we have in Toronto. We are all familiar with its motto:
The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.
That quotation from Junius I am sure is perfectly familiar to my two hon. friends from the maritimes, who no doubt studied the letters of this great publicist when they were taking their B.A. course. This is the heading of the Globe sermon given during the morning service. I shall be pleased to conduct this evening service unless some of the hon. ministers will take my place and end their sleep of peace.	i
The people of Ontario are vitally interested in bill No. 78 now before the House of Commons for the purpose of renewing the thirty-three-year-old charter of the Montreal, Ottawa & Georgian Bay Company, giving authority to develop power on and canalize the Ottawa and French rivers. The second reading was moved in committee last Friday, and was opposed by Sir George Perley on the ground that advancing it to this stage would give approval to the principle of the measure, a point which, he believed, called for serious consideration.
When the charter was granted this company in 1894 Ontario had not entered upon its program for public ownership of water-powers. The project was received with enthusiasm not only in the Ottawa valley and along the French river but throughout the province because of the transportation facilities promised as much as for the prospective power development. Since hydro has demonstrated itself conditions have changed, and the people are no longer willing to turn over to private ownership hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of natural resources which can and should remain part of the public domain.
It wras hoped and expected that steps would be taken within a reasonable time to make the charter operative. Authority to proceed with the work has rested during all this time with the company, for it has been able to go to parliament and get its charter renewed no fewer than thirteen times. It is now back for the fourteenth time without having shown any tangible evidence of good faith in carrying out the project. Is it reasonable to suppose that the members of parliament will view this sort of thing with complaisance?
If the Georgian bay canal bill is passed by parliament it will cause Ontario the loss of half a million horse-power, according to Premier Ferguson. The province will back him up if he carries out his promise to fight this to the limit.
The original estimate of the cost of building the canal-the feature of the improvement
[Mr. Church.J
which has been most stressed by its promoters -was $100,000,000. Not only was this money not forthcoming, but Sir _ Robert Perks, who appeared in connection with it, and who was known to have powerful financial backing, appealed on various occasions to the federal government to guarantee the bonds of the canal, advancing the argument that it was a work for the benefit of the public. Beyond doing a small amount of surveying, this is about as far as the 'building of the canal proceeded, and this alone is enough to cast doubt on the sincerity of the company so far as the canal is concerned.
The Sifton interests now' appear as sponsors for the undertaking, and besides being a contest, as it has in past years, between demands for consideration for Ottawa power development as against St. Lawrence development, it has developed into a contest for power rights at Carillon between the Siftons and Montreal power interests. As between the two, those who believe in public ownership and the development of hydro have, perhaps, not much to choose, except that, so far, the Montreal people do not appear to seek as much from the public as the others. On the other hand, the charter of the Georgian Bay Company apparently does not obligate it to carry on more development work than it finds profitable.
This is a point which parliament cannot afford to overlook. Under the original act. and as it now stands with its amendments, it is open to the company to proceed, ostensibly, with the construction of a section of the canal, say, in the Carillon falls district, or at any other point along the route where there is a water-power, and then abandon the work. If this is done, or if for any reason the company fails to proceed after developing the Carillon falls power, or any other power, under the guise of constructing part of the canal, there reverts to the government-to quote the language of the act-"so much of the said canals and works as then remain uncompleted."
On the face of it, then, the renewing of the charter gives to the company authority to proceed with such work as it selects, and if it leaves the project incomplete the government can take it over with its blessing. The fact that the company is not given an exclusive franchise, as pointed out by the Minister of Railways and Canals in 1924, does not help much.
Now if this bill is passed by parliament it will mean the loss of half a million horsepower to the people of Ontario according to an estimate made by the premier of the province the other day, and the whole province will be behind Premier Ferguson in appealing the matter to the Privy Council, as undoubtedly he will do if we allow this to go through.
I have here a report on the St. Lawrence waterway submitted by the International Joint Commission concerning the improvement of the St. Lawrence river between Montreal and lake Ontario for navigation and power purposes. At page 94 of this report I read the following:
E. L. Cousins, of the Toronto Harbour Commission, stated on the other hand that 'the Georgian bay route had been investigated some

Georgian Bay Canal Company
years ago, and that it had been established that a vessel could be taken from Duluth or Fort William to Montreal by the St. Lawrence in much less time than by way of Georgian bay. He also pointed out that the season of navigation on the latter route would be much shorter, and that it lay through an unsettled country. It may be noted that during the past fifty years or so a number of reports have been made to the Canadian government on the practicability of the Georgian bay ship canal, the most elaborate as well as the latest report upon the engineering features of the scheme being that of 1908, while in that and subsequent years Sanford Evans reported upon the economic practicability of the same route.
At page 34 of the same report there appears a brief survey of the work accomplished in connection with the Georgian bay ship canal project. I would recommend a reading of the report in that connection. When we consider the large investment which the municipalities of the province of Ontario have in the hydroelectric scheme it is nothing short of a tragedy that a private interest should come to this parliament and seek to have this whole territory handed over for exploitation. A resolution was unanimously adopted by the Ontario legislature a day or two ago opposing the passage of this legislation, in view of the immense investment which the people of the province have in the hydro-electric enterprise, an investment amounting to about $250,000,000. Capital is invested in hydro undertakings by the Niagara system to the extent of $141,000,000 odd, also in the systems under the control of Essex county, Thorold, Severn, Eugenia, Wasdells, Muskoka, St. Lawrence, Rideau, Thunder Bay, Ottawa, central Ontario and Trent, and Nipissing; and in service buildings, construction plant, stores, hydro-electric railways, and so forth.
When you reflect on the service which the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission has been able to render the people of the province, not only in the cities and towns but in the country as well, you can appreciate the gravity of the present attempt to secure for private exploitation this vast territory in the Ottawa valley. To hand over this territory to a private concern would be simply outrageous. Just consider for a moment what the Ferguson government proposes to do to carry the great boon of cheap light and power right to the door of the Ontario farmer, in order to make living conditions as easy for him as for the urban dweller. By means of subsidy the provincial government intends making life on the farm in Ontario a real joy by providing light, power and heat at the lowest rates possible, thus realizing the dream of the late Sir Adam Beck. The scheme which the provincial government has in contemplation is practicable and it will enable every bit of work on the farm to be done by electricity.
The bill before the House is objectionable in many respects. In the first place it does not conform to the rules of the House, and, secondly, there is the finding of a royal com-mision which was appointed to investigate this whole question. Sir Henry Drayton, Mr. Acworth and Mr. Smith, the president of the New York Central, went into the whole question and submitted a report to parliament. They recommended that there should be no extensions or renewals of canal and railway charters without first a report on the same being made by the railway commission.
The province of Quebec is opposed to this particular bill and the leader of the opposition in the legislature has introduced a resolution with respect to it which is to come up for discussion. As to the attitude of the province of Ontario the Toronto Globe, in its issue of March 4, puts itself on record as follows:
In his clear-cut and emphatic statement regarding the application for the renewal of the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa & Georgian Bay Company, now before the Dominion parliament, Hon. G. H. Ferguson speaks not as a party leader but as the Prime Minister of this province. In his determination to resist the passage of this iniquitous measure -a measure which proposes, in the matter of vast and valuable public resources, to extend the thirty-three-year period of private corporation control during which nothing has been done-and in his appeal to the representatives of all provinces and all parties to unite in defeating it, Mr. Ferguson will find the overwhelming majority of the people militantly behind him.
It is not too late yet for this House to unite with the province of Ontario and so make the action against this bill unanimous. On this point the Globe expresses the following opinion:
Ontario Is Unanimous
By the unanimous adoption of Premier Ferguson's resolution of protest the legislature yesterday placed the province on record as opposed to the extension of the Georgian bay canal charter. There is no doubt that public opinion was thus put in concrete form. The legislators were on safe ground. There could have been no compromise when a question of general policy was at stake. Both Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Raney realized that politics had no place in the matter, and their followers rallied to the support of the Prime Minister.
This was a public-spirited act which their constituents should appreciate. And now the fight goes to the legislative halls at Ottawa, where united Ontario should make itself heard in no uncertain voice. The press of the province, regardless of political affiliation, has expressed disapproval of this charter, that the water-powers of the Ottawa may be retained for the benefit of the people. It is not a question of denying a franchise to one private corporation that another may get it, but of preventing all private exploitation of this important waterway. At Ottawa the fight, to date, has been chiefly between two private

Georgian Bay Canal Company
interests. Ontario should step in to see that neither succeeds in gaining possession of power rights which can be preserved and developed by and for the public. The St. Catharines Standard points out the situation in these words:
From all reports, a mighty powerful subterranean lobby is in progress at Ottawa on the issue. The Siftons are powerful interests behind the government, but the fly in the ointment, from a government standpoint, is in the fact that the Sir Herbert Holt group is opposing the charter tooth and nail. If the government accedes to the Siftonian demands, then trouble from the Holt group in Montreal may be expected. It is argued that if the company really wants to build the canal, let it go ahead and build it, but parliament should revise the old charter and withhold the power rights.
Ontario is manifestly not interested in this fight, except to checkmate both parties. It has no wish to throw the vast millions buried in the Ottawa and French river waterfalls into the pockets of the _ Holt exploiters any more than to the Sifton interests. It is doubtful if a canal charter can be given without prejudicing the public rights in the power, and if this is the case the issue for Ontario is the termination oi the whole thing. The value to the exploiters lies in the power, not in the canal. The one should not be permitted to cloud the other.
This province knows where it stands, and the representatives of its legislature and municipalities should overlook no step necessary to impress its position upon the members of the federal parliament.
There are two main questions involved in the consideration of this question. The first is with respect to handing over to a few private individuals the right to build a canal through the Ottawa valley to the city of Ottawa and to charge tolls for the use thereof, as against the construction and maintenance of this waterway as a government work. Having decided that question the disposition of the water powers must be considered. As I have already pointed out, subject to the rights of navigation, the surplus water belongs to the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The bed of the Ottawa river, the banks on both sides, and the rapids and falls in that river belong to the two provinces equally, subject to whatever water may be required for navigation purposes. These are the two chief questions which must be kept in mind and not by the widest stretch of the imagination can it be urged that the water-power clauses of this particular bill are a matter for the federal authority to deal with.
I should like now to read expressions of opinion by the press of Ontario, outside the city of Toronto, in regard to this measure. The Stratford Beacon-Herald declares:
Water-powers in Ontario are the property of the people. The late Sir Adam Beck fought for years to establish that fact, and he did establish it. He may have been arbitrary in
TMr. Church.1
his methods, but he was right in his ideals. It has been the people's money that has demonstrated the worth of water-power development in Ontario and there can be no departure now from that policy that marks all water-power sources as the property of the people. When Premier Ferguson sends his protest to Ottawa against renewing an old charter to a private company he will be sending it on behalf of all the people in this province.
The Port Hope Times gives utterance to the following opinion:
A Gift of $100,000,000
The iniquity of the proposed renewal of the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa & Georgian Bay Company, now before the Dominion parliament, has been recognized for a long while by most people. Some members of the King government, however, and others close to the Sifton interests do not seem to be so impressed with the iniquity of the proposal and apparently there is going to be a battle royal on the application for a renewal of the charter. The granting of the application would mean a gift of $100,000,000 to the Sifton interests.
The Ottawa Citizen takes the following stand:
Privileged Interests Too Late.
The Canadian people are no longer willing to hand over such special privileges, including the control of hydro-electric power resources, to private promoters. Private capital should have been more enterprising in the years when there would have been some credit due to promoters in starting work on the Georgian bay canal. They might have claimed the reward of foresight. But in this age of power development, it calls for no foresight to see the immense value of water-powers on the Ottawa river. It would be the equivalent of a cash gift worth millions of dollars from members of the House of Commons, at the expense of the public, to renew the charter again. Members of parliament who voted for it would come uncomfortably under the scrutiny of an unusually watchful public opinion.
The St. Catharines Standard declares:
The private charter of the Montreal, Ottawa & Georgian Bay Canal Company gives the company the easy spots for the development of power and the country would be faced with the burden of putting up the cash to finish the job. The course of the Sifton bill will be watched with interest in this part of the country, where the Siftons have as much influence over our votes as the Kaiser.
The St. Catharines Standard says further:
It was all right 33 years ago to turn over water-powers to private capitalists, but that policy in Ontario was revoked long ago, thanks largely to Sir Adam Beck, who preached the right gospel. The Sifton interests or anybody else will have the battle of their lives if they try to get water-powers in northern Ontario under any federal charter which has been dormant for over thirty years.
The Ottawa Journal makes the following statement:

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Propagandists for the renewal of the Georgian bay canal charter are telling the public that the Georgian Bay Canal Company is prepared to give the country free canals. *
The same argument was advanced when the Newmarket canal was undertaken. But saying that canals are going to be free does not make them free any more than the fact that some Liberals call themselves Liberal-Progressives or Progressive-Liberals makes them so in reality. They say they are going to get free canals. All the grain that will be carried free along those canals will be as much as would go in one airship. The article states further:
That, of course, is absurd. One cannot build canals without cost any more than one can build dams and power houses without cost. What the Georgian Bay Canal Company really means is that they will give free canals at the expense of power. They will tax the power to build the canal and maintain the navigation facilities. In other words, the power users, industries, municipalities and individuals of one narrow region in one or two provinces are to pay for navigation facilities that will be free to the citizens of all the provinces and to foreigners, and which under the British North America Act were to be a charge on the national exchequer.
Parliament cannot properly sanction such a thing. It would not only involve discrimination against one class in favor of another; it would give a concealed subsidy to one particular transportation enterprise.
That is what that paper says, and it states the ease correctly. The Hydro Electric Power Commission have protested strongly against this bill. They say that the territory should be given back to the Ontario government so that it may aid in developing the industrial centres of this province. I have in my hand, a map, not of the Newmarket canal or the Georgian bay canal, but a map of the Ottawa valley from the island of Montreal right up to the head of the French river through new Ontario. This scheme is being promoted by a large number of financial houses and brokers on both sides of the border, who are boosting the development of this property which has been ceded over to American millionaires, this super-power trust of the United States. Does the Liberal party in this House propose to stand for that sort of thing? Time will tell. The people of Ontario will soon find out where the political parties in this House stand regarding this particular transaction.
I might continue for another half hour until six o'clock, but I will not do so. I do not regret having taken up so much of the time of the House in discussing this matter, because I think a protest is due, and this House should vote down the making of a political
football of the resources of the Ottawa valley and handing them over to private parties. We should tell the promoters that the time has gone by in this House when they can get thirteen or fourteen renewals of a charter and treat their charter as a mere scrap of paper. The time has gone by when any government can so deal with the water-powers and other resources of this country. The time has gone by when a party that is willing to hand over to private individuals the resources of this country is entitled to the votes of the people who know the boon of cheap light and power.
The time has come for the government of Canada to declare its policy on this particular bill. It is useless to tell us to wait until the bill goes to the railway committee. Last year, in the case of the Red lake bill, we looked for Sir Henry Thornton to lay down the policy of the government, but there was no help from him in that particular transaction. He did his best to help the interests of the corporations, the Pennsylvania coal barons and the rest of the gentlemen who come from the other side, who are known as the super-power trust. The time has come now for the municipalities and the legislature of the province to demand from the head of the federal government respect for the petition which has been presented to him by the Ontario government. I hope the next sermon will be preached by some member of the government, of whom only five are in the House at present. Some of them have vacated their pulpits. Many of them are on holiday. Every time this bill comes up, they are all seeking a holiday. I know many gentlemen on this side of the House and in other places who want a holiday. Six hundred thousand Canadians had to take a holiday and go to the United States for 365 days in the year looking for jobs. The time has come when the people of this country demand to know where the government stands on this particular transaction.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion on this bill has been broadened by speakers following the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) until it looks as if a first-class issue along party lines had been raised by hon. members opposite. When the hon. member for Argenteuil was speaking the other night, he said that he had no expectation or idea of trying to keep this bill from going to committee. We all know, he said, that cannot be done, and we have no wish to do so. Does the hon. member now take that position, or does he endorse the amendment moved by the leader of the opposition

Georgian Bay Canal Company
(Mr. Guthrie) that this is a question of public policy which ought not to be dealt with by any private bill? Does he approve the clear, distinct statement of his leader that the amendment was proposed to afford! members of the House an opportunity of deciding upon what his leader chooses to call the principle of the bill? His leader stated that such was the object which he had in moving the amendment, his main object of course being to destroy this measure, to blot it out. If the hon. member for Argenteuil now approves that stand, why was it necessary for him to suggest as he did that the charter should be entirely redrafted to suit modern conditions?
The amendment moved will not give an opportunity to redraft the bill to suit modem conditions. It will blot it out absolutely, and the conference suggested by him between those applying for the charter and other bodies interested need never be held, because the charter holders will be blotted out and eliminated, as the leader of the opposition says. If the hon. member for Argenteuil now concurs in his leader's tactics, it seems to me it would have been proper for the hon. member to state bis position in the first instance, that he pursued and practised the policy of delay until he was assured of the support which is now rolling up from different parts of the country.
The hon. member also expressed his satisfaction with the fact that this question was not a party one and could be treated and decided on its merits. I was glad to hear him make a statement to that effect because on that ground, and on that ground alone, does the group which I represent seek to deal with this question, namely, on its merits. We believed, and we still believe, that this question should not be a party measure, and we do not see any necessity for any statement of policy from the government until all the known facts are available to the House. But what has happened?
Does the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) believe now, if he concurs, as I assume he does, in the proposed amendment of his leader, that this measure can be decided upon its merits or that the charter can be altered to suit modem conditions, except upon party lines? The hon. leader of the opposition proposed his amendment, so far as one can judge from the applause which greeted his remarks, with the unanimous approval of every member on the opposite side of the House if one may except only the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), who is in the position somewhat of a political curiosity. He can blame the party

of which he is a member for making this a party issue, and if he derives any satisfaction from that he will be entitled to all that the statement of his leader can give him.
The group which I represent can have and will have no participation in the discussion of this bill on partisan lines. We can and will, with whatever influence we have, pass on this measure in a non-partisan spirit, concerned only with the paramount interests of the Dominion of Canada.
Can any member of this House arrive at a conclusion on the facts which have been submitted to the House up to the present moment? Has any speaker submitted premises on which to build the conclusion that is proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition? Did the leader of the opposition give any reason why this House should adopt his amendment other than that stated in general terms, namely, that the building of the canal necessarily involved the disposal of the power sites which might be created in the proposed canal? The only pertinent fact evolved by the leader of the opposition was that the value of power sites had been recognized and appreciated in a larger measure than heretofore, and upon that ground, and with the idea of protecting the two provinces, he would without any further discussion blot out this charter.
What do we find are the facts concerning the position of those who are the real opponents of the measure as it presently stands? I have here the leases which have been granted in connection with the power sites by former governments, and I propose, if I may, to put them on Hansard, and to read only excerpts containing very general provisions.
The first lease is one which was granted on March 4, 1911. It was made between His Majesty the King and the National HydroElectric Company, Limited, of the city of Montreal. The conditions are therein stated; certain rentals, covenants, provisos and conditions. The lease gave certain lots on the northern side of the Ottawa river and certain lots on the southern side of the Ottawa river, and' its duration was for twenty-one years from and after March 31, 1911. The rental was to be $100 for the lands and for the water-power $2 per horse-power per year, payable half-yearly in advance. The covenants of the lessees were, first, as to rentals; second, taxes; and third, that they would comply with all the regulations. They were to have access to the property. They were limited to the works, and no works were to be commenced until the plans were approved by the chief engineer of the Department of

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Railways and Canals. The lessees had to commence construction within twelve months, and within two years have installed machinery to produce at least 250 horse-power. The lessees were to furnish a bond of $10,000, and in the event of a breach, default or nonperformance, the minister was to have the right to cancel the lease and the lessees have no claim for compensation whatever. The lessees also agreed to indemnify the lessor for all damages. The lessees were not to commence work until the plans were approved; the rights and privileges to be used solely for the purpose mentioned, and not to be sublet without leave. The lessees were to maintain the roads, and if at the expiration of twenty-one years the lessees desired renewal for a further twenty-one years or any lesser term, the lessee was to give one month's notice in writing of his desire, when the second term might be granted, as well as a third, but the rental might be increased in that event. The lessees covenant also that they will not enter into partnership without consent, and the right is given to the lessor to cancel the lease on six months notice, the lessor paying to the lessee the fair value of improvements made, assessable by arbitration. In case the lessees were unable to agree as to the quantity of power to be sold to any applicant or as to the provisions therefor, the same should be determined by the railway board.
In the subsequent lease, which was granted on December 1, 1921, the parties are the same, and it is recited that the company has made development and installed power machinery to produce at.least 250 horse-power: also that by order in council 1792 of July 14, 1913, as amended by P.C. 4553, authority is given for the issuing to the company of a new lease for construction works. The considerations were the same as formerly, and the lease gave lands and surplus water as described in the recited lease; also the right and privilege to construct and maintain a dam across the Ottawa river, and the right to pen back waters; also the right and privilege to use all the waters of the Ottawa river flowing to the said dam, and not required for the purposes of navigation, including the development of power for the operation and lighting of canals. The lands are more particularly described. The duration of this lease was from and after December 1, 1921, to January 1, 1943, subject to renewals as hereinafter described, at the following rentals:
(2)	$50,000 from January 1, 1928, to January 1, 1933.
(3)	$100,000 from January 1, 1933. to January 1, 1938.
(4)	$150,000 per year from January 1, 1938, to January 1, 1964.
(5)	For the 21 year period beginning January 1, 1964, such annual rental as may be agreed upon between the minister and the company or settled by the Exchequer court.
(6)	For the 21 year period beginning January 1, 1985, the same provision.
It goes on further and gives the covenants, which are the same as in the former lease. They were to commence construction within two years, and they had the power to acquire further lands by expropriation. Clause 9 reads:
(9)	The company shall construct a lock at entrance of Carillon so as to put said canal in good condition for navigation, to be the property of the lessor.
(10)	The company shall construct on or near Grenville canal a lock satisfactory for navigation, and so forth, to be the property of the lessor.
(11)	The company shall do such work as will furnish adequate protection to the existing works of the Carillon canal.
(12)	No works will be proceeded with unless approved by the chief engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals.
(13)	During navigation period of the company to maintain levels.
(14)	The company shall indemnify the lessor for any damages.
(15)	Lessor's right of entry.
(16)	The company shall keep roads in re-jiair.
(17)	At the expiration of term ending January 1st, 1943, the company may renew on giving one month's notice in writing; for a second 21, a third 21, and a fourth 21 years.


James Arthurs: What is my hon. friend quoting from?


James Allison Glen: I am quoting from the abstract of terms of the lease granted in 1921, and I have the original lease here:
(18)	Upon expiration of the lease the company shall forthwith remove buildings, etc., upon terms therein set out.
(19)	At expiration of lease should lessor desire to continue the utilization of power, through private operation, company shall be entitled to such upon terms.
(20)	The lessee has no right to sublet.


James Arthurs: What application has that particular lease to the Georgian bay canal?


James Allison Glen: That is a very proper question, and a question I propose to answer now. When the Meighen government was in power an order in council was passed renewing this particular lease which I have quoted.


James Arthurs: What lease?


James Allison Glen: The one I have already given. I wish the House to note that the renewal was granted on the 26th August, 1926, prior to the date of the general election, when the

Georgian Bay Canal Company
members on the opposite side of the House had no mandate from the country, and when they took upon themselves to grant a renewal of that lease governed only by their own sweet will.


Mr. HEAPS:: Did my hon. friend approve of the grant of that particular lease?


James Allison Glen: I was not asked to approve.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will my hon. friend answer
the question.


James Allison Glen: If my hon. friend will allow
me to continue he will find out whether I approved or not. Prior to the last election, without any mandate having been obtained by the leader of the opposition, or the government of which he was a member, they took it upon themselves to renew that lease, and these are the terms. I have a certified copy of the minutes of the meeting of the committee of the Privy Council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on 26th August, 1926, which reads:
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 23rd August, 1926, from the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, with reference to lease No. 24414, between the Department of Railways and Canals and the National Hydro Electric Company Limited, authorized by orders of the Governor General in Council, dated the 14th July, 1913, and the 1st December, 1921, which lease provided for the furnishing by the company, at no cost to the government, of greatly improved canalization facilities past the Carillon rapids in the Ottawa river, and the utilization by the company of the water-powers adjacent thereto.
The minister observes as follows:
That lease No. 24414 required that actual construction operations be commenced by December 1, 1923, a minimum of 25,000 horsepower developed by December 1, 1926, and certain rentals to commence within two years after the completion of the plant or by January 1, 1928;
That for financial and engineering reasons the company has been unable to conform to the original time clauses of its lease and appropriate extensions have been authorized by orders in council, dated August 14, 1923. November 29, 1924, and October 28, 1925, and
That the company now represents that its investigations and negotiations are advanced to a stage where it will be able to start actual work during the year 1927, and have the navigation improvements and power development adjacent thereto completed by December 1, 1931. Accordingly, it has requested that the arrangements provided in the original lease for the starting of construction work, completion of the improvements and commencement of rentals be now definitely stipulated in a new supplementary agreement.
The minister therefore recommends that he be authorized to enter into a supplementary agreement with the National Hydro Electric Company Limited, to again amend the said lease No. 24414, by granting a further extension of time for the commencement of impiovement IMr. Glen.]	'
works referred to by the 1st December, 1927, the completion of the works with a minimum of 25.000 horse-power developed by December 1st. 1930, and the commencement of payment of rentals on Janunary 1st, 1932.
The minister further recommends that should the company secure the cooperation of either or both of the governments of the province of Ontario and Quebec in the power phase of the improvement project, and on a basis satisfactory to Your Excellency in Council, one-third of the total rentals shall become payable to each of such cooperating governments, as a credit upon any rentals such provincial governments may exact.
The committee concur in the foregoing and submit the same for Your Excellency's approval.
(Signed) E. J. Lemaibe,
Clerk of the Privy Council.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: My hon. friend mentioned Carillon falls. Does that cover the same property this bill covers?


James Allison Glen: Of course not.


James Arthurs: If this agreement by the
government, or by any government previous to the renewal of the charter, has any effect, it means that the charter itself would not be affected; or in other words, if the government had power to grant to any company the control of the Carillon power on the Ottawa river, or under any other power, or any other terms than these, then this bill would be ineffective, would it not?


James Allison Glen: My hon. friend does not
realize the exact situation. Here is a lease granted to a power company which has been in existence for a considerable period, under which certain provisions with regard to construction of works have to be made within a certain time. That work is not completed. They come to the government-unauthorized as a good many seem to think, in office without having received a mandate from the country to carry on-and yet this government of its own act, without consultation with anyone else, grants a renewal of that lease.
Now I come to my hon. friend^s point. Lo and behold ! We have here the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) moving an amendment to a charter which has not yet expired, and the works under which are in exactly the same position as the works provided for under that lease. His amendment is against the principle of the bill. Does he think that the principle of the lease is any different from the principle involved in the bill? The same request was made of the government of that day for a renewal of the lease as is now being made of this government for a renewal of the bill or charter.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Not of the government,
of parliament.


James Allison Glen: Yes, of parliament. The
same situation has arisen in connection with a portion of the very same matter that is contained in this bill, and yet the leader of the opposition came forward and offered to that company an extension of the lease without consultation with parliament.


James Arthurs: No, no.
# Mr. GLEN:	But it was done.


Ernest Lapointe: Absolutely.


James Allison Glen: Because my hon. friend does
rtot know that when the present government came into power they took upon themselves by order in council to cancel the extension that had been granted.


James Arthurs: Will my hon. friend allow me a question right there?


James Allison Glen: I will now read the cancellation if my hon. friend will permit me. This is certified to be:
A true copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the Privy Council, approved by the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General on the 28th September, 1926.
The order in council proceeds:
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 28th September, 1926, from the Minister of Railways and Canals, representing that by an order in council of the 26th August, 1926 (P.C. 1337) what purports to be authority has been given for entry into a supplementary agreement with the National Hydro Electric Company, Limited, covering an extension of time for the commencement of the improvement works to be carried out by the said company under its lease No. 24414, dated the 1st December, 1921, in respect of certain lands and land and surplus water, together with certain rights and privileges to construct a dam and to use the surplus waters of the Ottawa rivers; the time for the commencement of the works referred to to be fixed as by the 1st of December, 1927; completion of the works with a minimum of 25,000 horse-power developed to be fixed by the 1st of December, 1930, and the commencement of payment of rentals on the 1st of January, 1932. The said order in council further purports to authorize payment of one-tliird of the total rentals to each of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, as a credit upon any rentals such provincial governments may exact, in the event of the company securing the co-operation of either or both of the said provincial governments in the power phase of the improvement project on a basis satisfactory to Your Excellency in Council.
The minister further represents that it is expedient that the matter, as approved by the above mentioned order in council of the 26th of August, 1926, P.C. 1337, be given reconsideration.
The minister, therefore, recommends that the said order in council of the 26th of August, 1926, P.C. 1337, be cancelled.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
(Signed) E. J. Lemaire,
Clerk of the Privy Council.
Does that answer my hon. friends' question?


James Arthurs: No, it does not. What possible connection has the order in council or its repudiation by the present government with the Georgian bay canal scheme?


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, either I have not made myself clear or the hon. member is dull. I have endeavoured to show him and this House that the principle which the leader of the opposition has invoked in connection with this charter is exactly the same principle that he did not invoke when he granted a renewal of the lease to the National Hydro Electric Company. That is the reason why I think this is merely a subterfuge, an attempt to prevent this bill going to the committee where the facts can be ascertained. I fail to see, Mr. Speaker, wherein the leader of the opposition in his speech differentiated between that principle with respect to the lease and the principle which he enunciated in his amendment. It seems to me that the same rule of law should apply in this case as in the other.
Now, I suppose consistency may be preached in politics but not practised. However, I imagine that in this matter consistency would be a great virtue, more especially in dealing with a bill of this magnitude, and that we ought to keep it in view. This brings me to the inquiry as to what interests are involved and why there is this discussion on the principle of a measure that has been before this House for the past thirty-three years, during which time I must assume that the principle was discussed and passed upon. Apparently two interests are concerned' in this discussion-one that the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) has just described as the Sifton interests, and the other that has been mentioned by certain hon. members as the Holt interests. There seems to be a conflict between these two interests which is to be terminated by this debate.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Sifton interests have the charter of which they are now seeking a renewal. According to the statements of several hon. members the building of the proposed canal cannot be divorced from the creation of power sites. This argument is used. If it is admitted, as the leader

Georgian Bay Canal Company
of the opposition has stated on page 1137 of Hansard, that all that parliament is concerned with is its paramount rights in respect to navigation on an interprovincial river-and I have no reason to doubt that that is so-the question naturally arises: Can the canal be built without at the same time constructing dams and practically everything else necessary for electrical development except only power houses and turbines? In other words, is not the expense of developing the potential hydro-electric energy along the canal an inherent, necessary and incidental expenditure without which the canal itself cannot be built? When he was speaking on this bill last week I asked the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) how he proposed to separate the use of the water in the Ottawa river for hydro-electric purposes from its use for navigation purposes. I thought that was a very pertinent question to put to the first speaker on the subject, and the only answer I received was that, in his opinion, the parties interested at the conference, which he suggested should take place, would determine this. The answer is not satisfactory and, I submit, is not entirely conclusive to members of this House.
I am not offering any evidence myself as to the arguments that have been advanced, for a very good reason which I think will answer the question put to me by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). But suggestions have been made by a number of speakers as to the potentialities of the project and what it might mean to the Dominion of Canada. I will mention some of these suggestions. It has been suggested, for example, that the control of water in the river for navigation purposes means so controlling the water as to maintain a certain depth in the channels; that the maintenance of the depth of water in the channels is a matter of and is entirely dependent upon the control of the water levels; and that the maintenance of the water levels entirely depends upon the control of all the outlets in the dam irrespective of the form which these outlets may take. Is it not a fact that hydro-electric power is developed iby the control and manipulation of the outlets in the dams? Can power be separated from navigation without giving the power company the control of the water which passes through the outlets of the dams to the turbines? If not, would the result not be to separate the two, giving the control of navigation to the power company?
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


James Allison Glen: Before the House rose at six
o'clock I was endeavouring to put forth some propositions which I think will have to be answered by the opponents of this measure, to the effect that control of the water in the river for navigation purposes means such control as will maintain the depth of the water in the channels; that the maintenance of the depth of the water in the channels is a matter of, and is entirely dependent upon, the control of the water levels; that the maintenance of the water levels depends entirely upon the control of all the outlets in the dam, no matter what form these outlets take; and I asked was it not a fact that hydroelectric power is developed by control and manipulation of the outlets in the dam? Can power be separated from navigation without giving the power company the control of the water which passes through the outlets of the dams, and if not, would the result not be to separate the two, giving the control of navigation to the power company? It seems to me that these questions will have to be answered by the opponents of this measure. If an affirmative answer be given to any of these proposals then the opposition to the bill must necessarily fail. If an affirmative answer be given to any of them there is nc justification for the amendment.
Now what is the converse of that position? Does the leader of the opposition, or does the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), argue that the canal of itself is of no value? I hardly think so. Yet if these power sites are given to syndicates who are not obliged to build the canal-and that I presume is the intention of the hon. member for Argenteuil, whatever may be the intention of the leader of the opposition-then the effect of the amendment if passed would mean not only the blotting out of the measure but also the killing of the canal project itself. Is the House prepared at this stage to take such a drastic step?
The promoters of the charter advance a number of reasons why the bill should carry.
I do not say anything with regard to the soundness of their arguments, but among the reasons they give are a number which I propose to enumerate and which I think are worthy of some comment directed to those who are opposed to the bill. The promoters of the bill claim that the project will provide a Canadian deep waterway from the great lakes to the sea controlled and operated by Canadians and subject to no treaty rights with any other nation. They claim that it

Georgian Bay Canal Company
will develop large quantities of electrical energy from water-powers. That is, I think, indisputable. They claim it will develop the valley of the Ottawa river and make it one of the most desirable industrial areas in Canada, having a sea frontage throughout its length, having transcontinental railway lines passing along it, and equipped with a tremendous supply of cheap hydro-electric energy. They further claim that the project will give to territory contiguous to it overwhelming advantages in the reduction of industrial costs through the cheapness and availability of power, and desirable location from the point of view of lessened transportation rates. They also claim it will reduce the cost of coal to consumers from the central provinces and be the means of opening up a market for Nova Scotia coal as far west as Port Arthur. They claim likewise that it will provide transportation from Port Arthur to the Canadian seaports for the grain of the west seeking markets overseas. If that is so it will, I believe, be of considerable benefit to the producers of the west.
They also claim that transportation by this canal to the seaboard will mean the deflection of a great deal of trade which presently goes to Buffalo. They say that this will mean a saving of time and distance and a considerable diminution in the costs. These and many others are amongst the arguments that are advanced by those who are supporting this bill. As I have already said, I have no knowledge of the soundness of these arguments; but so far as I have heard, read and been told, no other member of this House is in a position to controvert them. It is not to be expected that any single member could give a comprehensive reply to any of the arguments advanced by the supporters of the bill, and I am satisfied that no statement made by any hon. member across the floor of this House could have as much value and effect as if it were made across the floor of a committee room, because then and there we would have an opportunity of examining experts and other witnesses who might be called for or against this bill and of being seized of the actual facts to enable us to arrive at proper conclusions.
We are faced with this proposition, that without a knowledge of the facts, we are asked to condemn a measure which has been before this House at different times over a period of so many years with frequent renewals, when the principle of the bill which is spoken of in the amendment must necessarily have been discussed. This proposition which may have such tremendous and far-reaching potentialities we are also asked to condemn on the bare negative statements made by the leader of the
opposition, and to leave these power rights about which there is so much controversy, where? It has been said and repeated in the press time and again that the people of-Ontario, through Premier Ferguson, have taken the position that they are out for public ownership. There are many of us in the same position as Premier Ferguson, but sometimes one should clean one's own doorstep before advising somebody else what to do.
I do not give this with any degree of authority of my own, but I am told, as a good many members have been told through the gossip of the lobbies and elsewhere, that this same province and government of Ontario have militated against the principle of public ownership. The hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) was condemning on that ground the Gatineau Power Company contract. What are the facts? I have been told that the fact is that the Ontario government through the Ontario hydro have contracted to buy from the Gatineau Power Company 260,000 horse-power for thirty years at S15 per horse-power. That is a contract to put into the treasury of the Gatineau Power Company nearly $4,000,000 per annum for thirty years, and is a security to that company in the guaranteeing of its bonds. What does this mean? Is this public ownership? I would say certainly not, and when I refer to the fact that anyone who demands cleanliness of house should clean his own doorstep first, it might be well for the people of Ontario to consider that matter before enunciating a policy of public ownership. Is it not a fact that this may account for a good deal of the opposition that is coming to this measure, namely, that a number of hon. members on the other side of the House are anxious to get rid of the Georgian bay canal project in order that the Ontario hydro may guarantee the bonds of a number of privately-owned power companies? Perhaps that is the nigger in the woodpile, as it is often called, but I would like to challenge anyone to find one iota of public ownership in the planks of the Conservative party. I have not found it nor have we heard it enunciated on the floor of this House during this debate.
Those on the other side ask us to drop a proposal which may mean the construction of a waterway without cost to the Dominion, and they do this on the ipse dixit only of those interested and therefore prejudiced. That is not sufficient. I am taking the position that is not sufficient for me. The other day I saw in the Ottawa Citizen an editorial addressed to the Liberal-Progressives of this House among whom I include myself,

Georgian Bay Canal Company
stating that the members of this group will need to watch their step carefully. It intimated that because of the vote which took . place on the adjournment last week, when we voted with the Liberal party on this side of the House for a continuation of the debate, we had not an open mind in the subject. Let me assure the House that for that very reason, the open mind, are .we concerned with this bill going to committee. We are not prepared to vote on the measure because of the negative arguments advanced. We prefer, if you like, to put the matter in this way, to Sifton the evidence rather than to be a party to the Holt-up that is being consummated in this House at the present moment.
Only to-day there is in that same newspaper a further editorial, most unfair in its terms, wholly contradictory of the argument that was submitted by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson). I know him, and probably when the Citizen editorial writer gets to know him as well as I do, he will realize that the hon. member is not likely to become a Richard Yea and Nay, as is the effect of the amendment moved from the other side of the House, but he is willing to listen to and accept, if necessary, sound and solid reasons why he should vote otherwise.
Let me state as emphatically as I know how, and as the rules of this House will permit, that we propose, so far as lies in our power, to see that, if and when this bill goes to the committee, first of all the paramount interests and rights of Canada shall be adequately protected and safeguarded. We will also endeavour, as far as in us lies, to see that the rights of present and future citizens of Canada are not violated or infringed upon by the terms of this charter. This we are satisfied can only be done in committee, when all parties interested, those for and against, including any of the newspapers that like to take the opportunity, shall be given the opportunity to give evidence on the facts. Then, when the data has been .collected and analysed, we shall be in a position to decide between the conflicting interests in this proposition, and we shall be able to vote without the dictation of any newspaper writer, just as freely and as conscientiously as he penned his remarks. What we want' are the facts. No declaration such as was called for by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) from the government will be of any value to us now. It may be of considerable value, after the evidence has been collected and analysed, for the government to give us a line and a lead, but, Mr. Speaker, 
I think the members of this House can also make up their own minds after they have got the facts.
Let me say that we are not satisfied with the terms of the charter any more than any of the other hon. members of this House. It may need revision to suit these present day conditions that the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley) spoke of, but if it does need alteration, that alteration cannot be made on the floor of this House, because there has been no evidence adduced by a single member which would lead one to alter the terms of the contract. But on the floor of the committee room, where we have the opportunity, we can amend that charter and it can then come back to the House as amended. I do not think for one moment that the leader of the opposition is likely to say that the committee will not have the right to change the charter. That at all events is not the customary, acknowledged practice. There have been government measures in the .past which have been discussed on the floor of this House pro and con in a most embittered fashion, and have been sent to the committee after a vote, and from the committee, after further discussion, they have come back to the floor of this House, not with the recommendation of the committee, but with an adverse report. That I think happened in the case of the Petersen contract measure of two years ago.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The Petersen measure
was a government bill. Does my hon. friend dispute the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition that the carrying of the second reading necessarily involves approval of the principle of the bill?


James Allison Glen: The Petersen contract measure was a government measure. This is a private measure. The question of the principle of the bill, of which so much is made, need not necessarily affect the details of the bill when it comes from the committee, and the mere affirmation of any principle, however far-reaching it may be, does not affect the actual details upon which we shall base a decision. Upon that ground I am resting. We are not affirming the principle of the bill, but we are asking that the bill shall go to the committee in order that we shall know what is the principle in the bill, for we do not know it yet. Then, when we know the principle of the bill, as we shall know it in committee, we shall know what are the details and terms of the bill, and decide accordingly.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is not, I think intended, nor can it be established, that

Georgian Bay Canal Company
the ultimate powers of this House can be abridged in any way by the report of the committee. We can only be bound by the registered vote given in this House when the ultimate ' discussion takes place. That is the position I take, and that is the reason why I shall oppose the amendment. I view the proposed amendment unfavourably. I cannot rid myself of the thought that it does not represent a policy, but is simply an evasion. The party which gave the extension of the Carillon lease were giving then expression to their viewpoint, and the object of the amendment is simply to embarrass and confuse. I have hopes that in committee this charter may develop and lead to a satisfactory conclusion of what is undoubtedly a question of first-rate magnitude. We ask, and I think the people of Canada are entitled to ask, the exact meaning of this whole issue, the reason for the opposition, the reason for this measure. That cannot be obtained on the floor of this House. It can only be obtained in the committee when the opposing interests are confronted with each other, and for that reason it seems to me the proper and the only course is to send the bill to the committee. I shall therefore oppose the amendment.


John Evans: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak very long, but I think I would be derelict in my duty did I not enunciate my principles on this measure, which to my mind involves one of the greatest questions that has come before the House since I have been a member.
The question of government ownership of public utilities is a matter of grave concern to this country at this time; in fact, I think it is the deciding point in the welfare of the people for all time to come with regard to cheap power for industry and domestic purposes. When the charter was first granted some thirty-three years ago, I do not suppose that the power question was as acute as it is now; it was not considered of as much importance as it is to-day.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that no measure should be enacted by this House until the people's rights in their own natural resources of any kind whatsoever and in any part of the country whatsoever have been fully protected.
In answer to my bon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Glen) I beg to say that no committee can ameliorate the evils of* private ownership of public utilities, and no matter how much this bill may be amended or brought into line with his ideas, the evils of private ownership of public utilities will remain for the people to pay for in all the years to come. I
am opposed to any private concern constructing even the canal, beginning at Georgian bay and ending at the Ottawa river. That is a public utility in itself, and should not pass into private hands. For that reason I opposed the other day a charter to construct a tunnel between Windsor and Detroit. That is a public utility, and it should not pass into private hands.
It is my opinion that were it not for the power possibilities on the Ottawa river today, this question would not be a subject for discussion in the House at this time. When the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox) was speaking some days ago, he quoted from an interview which Sir Clifford Sifton gave to the Toronto StaT, and he expressed his indignation at certain men who seemed to think they owned Canada, and who sought to control the government for their own particular benefit. I am quite in accord with him. Ever sinee confederation it has seemed to be the object of certain Canadians, who claim also to have a monopoly of patriotism, to secure for themselves projects by which later on they can bleed the people white of.their earnings through the operation of public utilities established on the credit of the country, which is based really on the earnings of the working class. The project under consideration is another scheme that links up the big investor with the politicians in this House, all designed to bleed the public. There is no object in granting this charter other than to secure the earnings of the people, and the people are misled into believing that their interests are looked after by their representatives in this House, while franchises for the creation of public utilities fall continually into private hands. The public press of the country is divided on the question, but I think it can be said that most of the press of the country belonging to the politicians and the big interests here is endeavouring to so dope the minds of the people at this time with false statements about prosperity and patriotism as to render public opinion silent on these matters, while the robbery is going on.
One would have thought it impossible, indeed, it did seem to me impossible, that a bill of this kind could be presented to the Canadian parliament looking to override what seems to me to be the exclusive rights of Ontario and Quebec. By what right can any company lay claim to the power rights on the Ottawa river? I say again that these men who think they control one or other of the political parties in this House presume to control the Dominion. Indeed, Sir, it has seemed for a long time past as though some

Georgian Bay Canal Company
people believed that this parliament existed for no other purpose than to expropriate the rights of the people and make a safe getaway for those who receive them into their hands. Only last year a measure passed through this House which alienated a certain right of a section of the people, and to-day it is law. I am referring now to vested rights which certain companies held many years ago in private elevators. As far back as 1904 the organized farmers of western Canada advocated the operation of government-owned elevators. As soon as we found that the government would not take over the monopoly we sought to do that work ourselves, and now that the government has seen that we are on the job in this matter, through perfect cooperation, or as perfect as it is possible to bring it at the time, they deprive us even of the right of shipping our own grain to the terminals which we have established out of our own earnings. We are everlastingly creating around us a network of vested interests from which we will find it hard in years to come to free ourselves. Indeed, it is an amazing thing to me-and I say it frankly, and I would not speak otherwise on this great question-that those men, some of them in western Canada, who have been there from practically the inception of agriculture west of the great lakes, will favour a monop-, oly passing into private hands. We have had a case of monopoly in western Canada between the railroads and grain-handling facilities during the last forty years, which one would think would convince any man representing the people from that part of the country that he should never favour in any way or form any great public utility passing into private hands.
From reading some of the papers on this great scheme I gather that about two years ago a company of which Clifford Sifton is a part got control of the charter to construct the Georgian bay canal. Undoubtedly the power is the pivot of the whole scheme on which this right of the people is now asked to be bartered away. Evidently the Tory government last summer favoured another set of interests, among whose names Herbert Holt appears, and to make sure that the hated Grits on the other side could not again accommodate their favourites they passed an order in council giving rights of power development to the Herbert Holt interests and what is known as the Shawinigan Company. Then, since the Liberal government attained power, this right was rescinded by an order in council which has lately been confirmed. To me it has looked so far like a case of

political expediency. I do not think either party had the right to do as they did, and I cannot see yet why the rights of the provinces should be overridden in this matter. All waterways and water-powers should be owned and operated by the people, 'whether they belong to the provinces or to the Dominion. It does not matter which; they should not pass out of the hands of the people, and whether this power belongs to the provinces on each side of the Ottawa or to the Dominion government, I say again there is absolutely no reason for giving rights on that river from which power may be developed until the rights of the people in this great natural resource are forever protected. The attitude of Ontario was freely set out on March 7, by a resolution moved by Premier Ferguson in the provincial legislature, seconded by W. S. Raney, and I will read, if I may, that resolution to the House. It as as follows:
That this House respectfully urges the^par-liament of Canada not to enact Bill No. 78 of the House of Commons respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Company for the reasons hereinafter set forth:
That the bill proposes to renew a charter to authorize the construction of a canal and the development of water-powers on the Ottawa and the French rivers, which said charter has already been in existence for 33 years without any evidence of progress toward the accomplishment of the projected canal;
That the application to parliament is an effort on the part of private promoters to secure through the federal parliament the control and ownership of a great and valuable public utility;
That the water-powers in the Ottawa river in interprovincial waters are the joint property of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and that the powers in the French river are wholly situate within Ontario, and are the property of the province of Ontario, and cannot be rightfully legislated upon by the Dominion parliament.
That the development of these powers is essential to the industry and the prosperity of the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and the only effect of Federal legislation purporting to vest these powers in a private company will be to retard development, create litigation, and impair the public interest.
That the water-powers of the Ottawa river, so far as they belong to this province, are an essential part of the public development and distribution of power in Ontario, in which the people of this province have already invested upward of $276,000,000;
That this legislative assembly desires to record its most earnest and emphatic protest against the attempt being made, by means of a private bill in the Dominion parliament, to alienate valuable water-powers from the control and ownership of this province, and thereby deprive the people of Ontario of the advantage of one of our greatest natural resources for the benefit and advantage of private promoters;

Georgian Bay Canal Company
That the province of Ontario respectfully urges that the rights guaranteed to the provinces under the federal constitution should be at all times respected by the parliament of Canada;
That this House believes that the occasion calls for a strong and conclusive pronouncement against the proposed legislation as being contrary to the spirit and the terms of confederation and prejudicial to the public interest.	.
For these and other reasons this House directs that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the speakers of the two houses of parliament of Canada.
I have read this resolution because I think it is imperative that the House should know the stand taken by the government of Ontario. It is certainly the view of the people in Quebec and Ontario that the power rights belong to their provinces and that neither the Holt nor the Sifton interests have the slightest title to a charter involving control of provincial rights. I think it is a healthy sign of the times that so many on the opposition side of this House have declared themselves openly for government ownership and operation of public utilities.
The member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) read telegrams advocating the building of this canal. Well, I say that we do not want to obstruct the construction of such a work. But why anyone would want to see a great public utility of this character in private hands is more than I can understand. If the canal is needed it will be built eventually by the nation itself. This is the natural and reasonable course to follow. In fact I go so far as to say that I believe the Georgian bay canal should have been constructed instead of the Welland canal. But, I repeat, it is the nation's job, it is not something for private interests to exploit. A great public work of this kind belongs to the people, and from the people it should never be alienated.
Recently I received from Washington a paper call "Labour; A National Weekly Newspaper." This paper contains an article by Judson King describing the fight that is going on in the republic to the south between the champions of public ownership and the power magnates for the possession of water-powers. If I were to change slightly the figures and the names of persons and places contained in this article it might be taken as a description of the contest that is proceeding in this House on this bill. Mr. Judson King, referring to the tremendous evil of allowing these natural resources to pass into private hands, says:
What is there in it for the power trust, which caused its lobby, inside and outside Washington, captained by Colonel Josiah 32640-75
Newcombe, New York lawyer, to go to such spectacular extremes in its fight to kill the Boulder Dam bill? Money? Yes. Politics? Yes. The combine is in politics on a national scale as part of its business.
He adds that the Electrical World in its issue of January 2, 1926, estimated that for the year 1925 the price of power in one of the states was 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour, as against 1.65 cents per kilowatt hour for the same service in Ontario under public ownership. To me it is plain that if this scheme is allowed to be developed by private interests the people of Ontario will have to pay, not 1.65 cents per kilowatt hour but three or four times that amount for their power, light and heat. The evils of private ownership and exploitation were never better set out than in this article.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would repeat that this House has no right to override the wishes of the people of the provinces concerned, most of whom and the majority of whose newspapers are alive to the situation. In this connection allow me to read a paragraph from the Cochrane Northland Post, which was quoted by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson) last week. Why he read it I do not know, because it contradicted absolutely all that he said on that occasion. This is the paragraph to which I refer:
It seems inconceivable that the government should have given away these natural resources belonging in the last end to the people, to private corporations for the purpose of exploiting these very people to whom such powers should belong, and. who live in the very shadow of their magnificence. As a matter of fact we feel sure that the government has no intention of permitting such big stick methods.
Premier Ferguson gave an intimation to a recent delegation from the northern Ontario associated boards of trade that in the leasing of lands and water-powers, the people's interest had been fully safeguarded and that the big corporations must watch their steps and live up to conditions exacted at the time of such leases being granted and that he would see that they do it.
In regard to all utilities of a public nature this nation should now look forward to the time of cooperative public ownership, so that services may be rendered in the most economical manner and as cheaply as possible to the public. I have enunciated this principle, with some force I hope, for many years. In western Canada we have talked about the public ownership of public utilities, and in fact this policy was one of the main planks of the platform on which I was elected, as it was of the platform on which all those sitting on the other side as Liberal Progressives

11S6

Georgian Bay Canal Company
were returned to this parliament. I trust that those hon. gentlemen will yet deem it their duty to the people to stand firmly on this one principle at least. Public ownership is the natural thing; it is in keeping with the movement of civilization. If we allow this great public utility to pass to-day into private hands we shall be taking a retrograde step and one not worthy of the Canadian people.


Mr. N. M. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast):: I lay no claims to powers of oratory or of persuasion such as have been displayed by some hon. members, and particularly by the hon. gentleman from Marquette (Mr. Glen). I do not envy such powers, nor do I need them in arguing a question so fundamental as that of disposing of our natural resources without knowing where they are going or what we are likely to get for them. I had not intended expressing myself on this subject until it became apparent from the comments in the newspapers, in the corridors of this building and in my own constituency that the question is one that is striking deeply into our constitutional fibre. I feel it my duty, however, and I take this opportunity to discharge that duty, of placing myself on record on this vital question, and in doing so I wish to assure the hon. member for Marquette, in reply to a suggestion from him, that this is not a partisan issue. It is not, nor has it been made a party question, at least by hon. members on this side. But when hon. gentlemen opposite inject the partisan element we will certainly dispute the point and disabuse the public of that impression. If any proof is required of the statement that the question is not partisan, so far at any rate as the party which I represent is concerned, I would refer the House to the first page of Hansard of March 9, wherein there appears a resolution passed in the Ontario legislature, moved by Premier Ferguson and seconded by the Hon. Mr. Raney-moved by the premier of the province and seconded by the leader of the Progressive party. If ever we had an example of the lion and the lamb lying down together, we have it in Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Raney agreeing on something. This, I repeat, is not a party issue, and the only reason the hon. member for Marquette made that insinuation was his desire for an opportunity to deliver the most partisan speech which has been made on this question in this House. So far as we are concerned the question is not a party question. But if it is, let the government immediately take all the advantage they can of the fact and, from the party standpoint, kill the bill and go out and proclaim them-
IMr. Evans.J
selves once more the defenders of the poor and the opponents of capitalistic influence.
Let me bring to earth a few of the toy balloons which the hon. member for Marquette has sent up. I do not know exactly what the rules of debate may demand in regard to this question, but certainly the ethics of debate should prevent any hon. member from making insinuations or repeating hearsay on the floor of this House unless he is prepared to disclose the source of his information. The hon. gentleman said-if I took down his words correctly, that Premier Ferguson should clean his own doorstep; and he referred to the Gatineau Power Company, remarking that while Premier Ferguson was outwardly an exponent of public ownership he was at the same time filling the coffers of the company. Let me assure the House that the only reason the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission is buying power from the Gatineau company is the fact that the power from the Ottawa river is not available because of this charter. We must have power, and two years ago we got to the extremity of being obliged to consider steam development. This power we are getting from the Gatineau is obtained at a reasonable rate which suits us, and the contract is not, Mr. Speaker, like the contract which this bill proposes, an interminable one. It is a contract which is convenient to us.
The hon. member declared that he wanted to keep an open mind on the question, and he was anxious to have the bill go to the committee so that its details might be discussed. May I point out that we are now discussing, not the details, but the principle of the bill, and if the principle is wrong, the details ought not to come before this House for consideration. My hon. friend may think he has an open mind, but there are none so blind as those who will not see. This afternoon he referred to a member on this side as being either dumb or dense. Well, the hardest man to convince is the great talker but poor listener, because if he never listens he can never change his point of view. The hon. member made an extensive apology for or explanation of the stand he was taking on the question. I would refer him to a maxim of Napoleon, that the best defensive is a strong offensive, and to a French saying which, if I translate it correctly, is this that he who excuses himself accuses (himself. The hon. member has a prejudged opinion; but he has a duty to perform and I compliment him on the glib way in which he put forward his arguments. We are not concerned, however, with half truths; we want whole truths, and when we discuss a question so vital as this surely political prejudices and party advant-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
ages should be carefully considered before they are allowed to override the public weal.
This is not a local issue; it is national in its scope, as representing a conflict of jurisdiction and a possible encroachment on provincial rights. A matter of provincial rights affects every province in the Dominion, and this particular question relates in its local application to two provinces which cannot be ignored-as we can well understand from a reading of our history-particularly if the factor of politics is to be considered.
As my hon. leader (Mr. Guthrie) has said, this is the time to settle the question of principle, and if the principle is wrong the House has no right to send the bill to the committee. The details of a bill which is wrong in principle should not be explored because anything which is wrong ab initio cannot be remedied. Of the principles involved, Mr. Speaker, I propose to discuss, and discuss briefly only, the most salient; and as far as possible I shall avoid going over ground that has been covered by others. At this stage of the debate most of the thunder has been stolen, but if it is my privilege to bring up a new point, something that might have some effect, if not on hon. gentlemen opposite, at least on the counsel for the public-the press and on the public itself-I shall consider that I have conti "buted something worth while to the discussion.
The first principle I lay down is that this is a public measure which should not be concealed in a private bill; or if it becomes apparent that the tentacles of the bill reach out and injure public interests, then the bill ceases to be in its character a private measure. I do not expect hon. members opposite or hon. members on this side to take my word for that. My respected leader the other night referred to May as authority as to the proper time to attack the principle of this bill. May I draw the attention, Sir, of hon. members opposite to Bourinot's Manual of the Constitutional History of Canada? I quote first from page 177:
It is the duty of the government-
Not a private member
-to initiate or promote legislation on every large question of public policy which requires attention at the hands of the legislature.
Now, reading from the next page:
If the House should press on their attention a particular measure, they-
That is the government.
-must be prepared to give it full consideration and assume ministerial responsibility for its passage or rejection. They must on all occasions have a policy on every question of public interest.'-[DOT]	>
This is Bourinot's statement, not mine.
-and cannot evade it if they wish to retain the confidence of parliament and of the country. As a rule, private members perform a useful public duty in bringing up measures which illustrate public sentiment in various directions. Parliament is essentially a deliberative body, and its not least important function is to prepare the public mind for useful legislation and to give it effect at the earliest possible moment. Private members consequently can materially assist the government by their suggestions for the amendment of the law.
Now will hon. members pay attention to this; I am still reading from Bourinot:
It would, however, be an evasion of the sound principle of ministerial responsibility if a government should attempt, by means of purely abstract resolutions or by the agency of select committees, to obtain from parliament the enunciation of the principles that should guide them in maturing a measure which imperatively demands legislation at their hands. It is their duty to gauge public opinion on every subject from the utterances of public men and of the public press, and lay down the main features of the policy that should be adopted.
And, Sir, turning to the next page, namely page ISO, here is something that is, I think, entirely directed to the point at issue and to this particular bill, and again I am quoting from Bourinot:
It is the special duty of the government as the responsible leaders of legislation and the chosen guardians of the public interests in parliament, to watch carefully the progress of private legislation, and see that it does not in any way interfere with the policy of the ministry or the statutory law in reference to the public lands, railways, canals, public works, and such other interests as are entrusted to the Dominion authorities.
Sir, is there anything more convincing than that? I may not speak with the authority of some of the older members of this House but I speak with the authority of Bourinot and I think that in the face of this obiter dicta the government is forced to take up the cudgels and stand or fall on the question of this bill, affecting as it does so vitally the public interests.
I would, Sir, refer to another authority and it is the only newspaper from which I shall quote. This is again the Toronto Globe, and it has the advantage of being to-day's issue and is an illustration of the final press reaction to this debate. I quote, Sir, from the first column of the editorial page as follows:
Hon. Hugh Guthrie's amendment to the Georgian bay canal bill has apparently put the onus on the government to declare itself. He has raised a point which the government itself should have seized and acted upon before being placed on the defensive. The silence of the ministry on such an important question has been almost inexplicable, and certainly disturb-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
ing. The proposal to extend the charter of the Georgian Bay Campany comes in a private bill, but it has been introduced by a Liberal member, and its benefactors are conspicuous supporters of the Liberal party. Rightly or wrongly, an impression has gone abroad that the government would not be unwilling to see the bill passed and the water-powers of the Ottawa and French rivers handed over to these interests. Failure of any members of the ministry to take part in the debate on the numerous occasions when the measure has been up has served to strengthen this conviction. It is time the country knew where the government stands. It should now learn.
I am leaving out the next paragraph which is a repetition and a quotation, but which accentuates that statement, and I go on to the last two paragraphs, which read:
Surely this is too grave a matter to be bandied about in a private bill. If a government has any jurisdiction, it is to safeguard the people's interests. But government spokesmen, so far, have had nothing to say, and the silence is ominous. Has the Ottawa Journal hit the point? "Since the commencement of the debate men of all parties have spoken" says this paper. But a great silence has hung over the ministerial benches. Those voluble gentlemen who on Tuesday night massed in verbal defense of an expenditure of $12,000 for a post office in a 500 population hamlet in Prince Edward island, sit like a bed of oysters when this canal charter comes up. Why? Has the government no mind in the matter? Or is it afraid to speak its mind? Can it be that the presence of Mr. Harry Sifton in the lobbies and in the galleries has paralyzed its tongue ?
. Having a clear majority, the government is in a position to kill legislation not in the public interests. It will have to assume responsibility or take credit anyway for such disposition as is made of this measure if it comes to a vote. It might as well have made its position clear in the debate. If the bill gets second reading it will mean virtually that the government approves of the principle of giving away public pow'er rights. Mr. Guthrie has done right in endeavouring to focus attention on this principle. It is to be hoped he is able to put the government on record, and, for the sake of the government, it is to be hoped that record will declare for the public instead of private interests.
That is quoted from another respected authority of hon. members opposite. It answers, to my mind, Mr. Speaker, the final criticism and punctures the toy balloon set up by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) when he attempted to prove a contradiction in the attitude of the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley). May I say that at that stage of the debate it was felt, just as it is felt to-day that hon. members opposite, were pledged to send this bill to the committee? It was felt that opposition would be useless. But when public opinion rose up in arms it was thought that some hon. members opposite might obey their patriotic

instincts instead of their political consciences, and the duty has been forced upon us of indicating public opinion as Bourinot says we should. The hon. member for Argenteuil has not changed his stand. Circumstances have changed since that speech was made, and circumstances have been changed by the tremendous revulsion of public feeling against this measure.
Now, Sir, if this is a proper measure, if it is not really a wolf in sheep's clothing, why cannot we have some utterance from those hon. members present who, on other occasions and in similar matters, have declared themselves in no uncertain terms? The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) not very long ago made an ardent plea in this House for people to keep their hands off the Canadian National railways and leave that public means of transportation alone.


Mr. DUNNING:: Hear, hear.


Mr. YOUNG (Toronto):: The minister says "hear, hear". No one on this side of the House wants to lay hands on the Canadian National railways. Sir, I ask from that ardent champion of public ownership some suggestion of where he stands-and this project affects his department, the Department of Railways-on the matter of giving away without any pledge in return that is worth the ink it is written in, a million horse-power and four hundred miles on either side for a thousand feet back of the vast lake shore property-if that country becomes popular as a summer resort-or lake shore property if this canal becomes a channel of trade? Where does the minister, as the protector of public ownership, stand on the question of giving away these tremendous resources in power? Where does the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) stand on a question involving a serious conflict between Dominion and provincial rights?
I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to weary the House by dilating on this. Some other , hon. members have simply said: Let the courts decide that. That is ridiculous, as I will attempt to demonstrate before I leave that part of my argument. The courts long ago decided that point, and it would be almost contempt of court to send back to the courts for their decision the question as to who owns that land in the beds of the streams and what are the respective rights of the provinces and the Dominion. Long before the passage of the Bed of Navigable Waters Act, it was decided by the courts that beds of navigable rivers cannot be private property; that they are owned by the crown in the right of each of the res-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
pective provinces, subject only to the paramount right of the Dominion in matters of navigation, and that is only so that the Dominion may see that there is sufficient water for and no obstruction of navigation. If hon. members want any authority for that, let them refer to the Montreal harbour case, and if they want any further authority, any further admission that the provinces have the sole right to these waters except for navigation purposes, to ownership of the beds of the streams and the power that is contained in those waters, I am going to refer-and I do this with great deference-to the words of the Minister of the Interior. I am quoting from page 2194 of Hansard of the 7th April last, where he said:
1 wish again to emphasize the fact that we are in entire agreement with the Ontario government.
That is in connection with the development of the St. Lawrence.
There is no dispute about the ownership of the power or the land to the international boundary. If they want to develop, there would be no holdup, so far as the federal government is concerned. I should like to see the hydro development on the Ottawa river; it seems to me there is a great opportunity for such development there.
Hon. members opposite may not respect the decisions of courts on points of law, but I think they should respect the opinion of one who sits in the treasury benches, the Minister of the Interior, and there is no equivocation about this utterance. It is an admission by the government that the power belongs to the province. The power is the property of the province, and it is no more a feature of or incident of navigation than is the bed of the stream. But in face of this, there are certain sections of the bill under discussion which bring up the question and the principle. Shall we arbitrarily ignore the established rights of provinces, and shall we, knowing these rights, force ourselves and those provinces into a welter of litigation. That should not be the well-considered view of this House.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Is my hon. friend through with his argument about my statement? because I should like to refer to it. At least half a dozen hon. members on that side have used it. I wish it to be distinctly understood that I am not taking back a single word of it, but I want to put this idea forward, namely, that the rights of navigation are paramount upon navigable streams.


Edward James Young: I fully admit
that, and in admitting that, I am not by one iota weakening the argument I made. I am
not discussing navigation, and I am not opposing a canal no matter where it may be proposed. I am opposing, as an incident to that canal, the giving away of $100,000,000 of natural resources. I said that certain hon. members opposite made the statement: Leave these rights to the courts. As regards that statement, I would refer hon. members to page 964 of Hansard where the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson), a distinguished legal luminary, said:
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.
Although we have no jurisdiction, we shall still go ahead and let some poor unfortunate province or person fight us to the court of last resort in order to obtain the rights which are now granted to them. The same comment was made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson) and any hon. member who is interested in checking up my statement will find his remarks on page 1013 of Hansard of this year at the bottom of the first column. At page 1135, there is an unfortunate remark in the statement of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, a remark which gives us the key-note for the whole address, an address for which I was sorry to hear he was severely castigated this morning in the Citizen. He said:
While a great deal of interest is taken by others in the power project, personally I have no interest in it.
An hon. member opposite has no interest in
1,000,000 horsepower. Any hon. member arguing from that viewpoint cannot persuade a single member of this House.
If hon. members can adopt that legal premise-and they do not have to take my authority for it, because the Minister of the Interior has been good enough to confirm it,- I want to refer to three sections of the act containing the charter which, as a matter of principle, we are to-day called upon to renew. By section 8 (c) the company can enter upon and take such lands as are necessary. There are other restrictions. But may I say that this government has no power to give any company the right which can be given only by a provincial authority. True, the Dominion can expropriate; but is it the intention of this government to pass on to a private company, without any assurance of fair play, the right to expropriate lands of the people of Ontario and Quebec along that river? Where the crown expropriates the eternal grace of the crown

Georgian Bay Canal Company
a canal if the construction of this canal is decided to be practicable, and if this route is decided to be the best water route. In that case it would be better for us to borrow the money ourselves and finance the project than to give away such a tremendous asset, an asset which after ten years may be three or four times its present value. I say we should not do that. If necessary we could build it as a public enterprise. On the other hand, if we cannot afford it, and if the only reason for building it is to give certain advantages to the western provinces and to the mari-times, we should be better off if we subsidized them to the extent of the interest on the investment we would save, or the interest on the value of the natural resources which we are giving away. That, however, is only one solution. One of the hon. members speaking on the other side to-night said that an alternative was not feasible, that it was poppycock. I say that if the government decided to build this canal they should call in the engineers and the proper authorities in Ontario and in Quebec; that they decide upon a scheme for the development of power which would be compatible with the construction of a proper and efficient canal, and that the canal should not be built by anyone or the power developed by anyone until that scheme should be worked out to the advantage of this government and of both provinces.
Many doubts have been expressed, Mr. Speaker, as to whether this canal will actually be built. It is a confession of our own weakness if in deciding upon the principle of this bill we send it to the committee, notwithstanding the existence of some doubt as to its ever being built; and judging from the experience of the years during which the charter has been in effect and the manner in which the bill is brought before the House, we have reason to doubt not that the power will be developed but that a canal will be built which will be useful for the commerce of this country. I am convinced that we do not realize what we are giving away, looked upon in the light of ten years from now. When this act was passed Sir, we had no conception that we would have a $100,000,000 asset in this project. In connection with a matter which has already been referred to I want to draw an analogy between this project and the loss to the province of Quebec and this Dominion of the district of Labrador. The hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has stated that he would get the reasons for judgment and that then we may discuss this matter. I hope that in addition to the reasons for judgment the hon. Minister

of Justice will get a copy of the argument- although the argument of the case took, I think, about fourteen days. The amount at stake in the Labrador case was $500,000,000. If we had a copy of the argument hon. members could inform themselves as to how this country lost that sum. If my recollection of the report of the judgment is correct, we lost it because of careless legislation in 1825 and careless map-making in 1874. I say we lost the whole of Labrador on account of legislative and administrative neglect, and Mr. Speaker, we axe going to lose control of the Ottawa river and all its vast resources on account of the same administrative and legislative neglect if we do not kill this bill. To further complete that picture, may I say as to power that on the Hamilton river in Labrador there is one direct fall of three hundred feet, another chute with a fall developed at one point of two hundred and eighty feet on that river and all its tributaries. We have also lost there, in 110,000 square miles, 60,000 square miles of the best of timber areas, and we lost it, I repeat, because of legislative and administrative neglect. One lesson of that kind should be enough for the province of Quebec and the Dominion of Canada.
There is a suggestion that this scheme is not practical. I do not wish to make statements based on hearsay, but I am going to refer to a statement which appeared in a good Liberal paper. When I said I was only quoting from one newspaper I overlooked this quotation, which is really a quotation from the report of the Department of Public Works. The Toronto Star has always been a good Liberal paper, and is considered, except at election times, to be careful in its utterances. I am quoting from the Star of March 12. and the quotation in the Star, as I say is taken from a report of the Department of Public Works issued in 1908:
"The descent from the summit level to Montreal is 659 feet, making the total rise and fall to overcome the divide, a total of 758 feet, the distance from Georgian bay to Montreal is 440 miles, and there are 27 locks on the route (650' x 65' x 22') and the estimate of the cost of the canal was 100 million dollars."
With regard to the question whether or not this is a practical proposition, I call the attention of hon. members to the twenty-seven locks, and also to the comments in this article:
The captain of a steamer would navigate ten miles of the lakes in preference to one mile on a canal or canalized river.
I read further from the same issue of the Toronto Star as follows:

Georgian Bay Canal Company
There is clear sailing over 160 miles on lake Ontario, where steamers run at full speed. The lake run leaves only 210 miles of canal and river, or 230 miles less than the 440 miles ot the projected canal.
Long boats, especially when deeply laden, are liable "to take a sheer and run aground or collide with an approaching boat. ' Difficulties of a light steamer in a canal with a beam wind blowing are mentioned. She must run at high speed in a beam wind, otherwise she will drift down on the lee bank. Delays arise in this way while sister ships are making 10 or 12 miles an hour on the lake.
The last paragraph deals with the engineering practicability of the project, which I am not prepared to discuss, but I give it to the House for what it is worth. The article continues:
The height of land separating the great lakes and the water from that flowing to the Ottawa, requires a summit level from which the canal can be fed east and west. This needs twice as much water as end fed canals like the Welland. It was proposed in 1855 and 1857 to raise the level of lake Nipissing by 16 feet.
" At present such a scheme is inadmissible, says the report.
This is the report of the department:
The number of settlements, villages and towns, apart from railway interests, which would be affected are vital objections to it This renders the whole problem of water supply a precarious one. A pumping scheme has been devised as a remedy, and this plan was never tried before on a large scale, such as would be required.
Now, with reference to the practicability of the scheme, if possible I wish to reduce to their proper proportions some of the statements made by hon. members opposite in its favour, because information is valuable only according to its reputability or the source from which it emanates. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorsonl said last week, in the course of his speech in support of this bill which will be found at page 965 of Hansard:
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.
He should have informed the House that he was taking that statement virtually word for word, from a circular letter which I believe was sent to every hon. member by the secretary of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, Mr. George W. Volek-man. This gentleman states that the saving in distance.between the two routes is 282 miles. It will be observed that the hon. member spoke also of a reduction in time by this proposed route of 37 hours. Compare with this Mr. Volckman's statement on the second page of his letter:
Saving in time of transit via the Georgian bay canal 37 hours.
The hon. gentleman d;d not tell the House that he was basing his statement on the brief of the very company that is trying to lobby this bill through parliament.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) made a similar mistake and, as I think, also treated this House unfairly. At page 966 of Hansard he stated:
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.
Let me set against this a paragraph from page 3 of Mr. Volckmans letter-
It is well known that "time" is the main factor in fixing of rates and that by the same type of vessel the rate will vary directly as the time of transit.
The hon. member with an air of great wisdom quoted this statement holus bolus to the House, but he did not inform us that, as the mouthpiece of this company, he was repeating their whole argument.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the statements are untrue?


Edward James Young: I suggest that
thes'- statements should be viewed with grave suspis on, and that if the House is being fed with material supplied by the company seeking a renewal of this charter it should in fairness to bon. members be so stated.


Mr. McMILLAN:: Du you know if those
statements are untrue?


Mr. ILSI  BY@: Are the statements correct? That is whet we are inteiested in.


Edward James Young: I say they are incorrect, but I cannot prove it any more than you can disprove it. Now I wish to read a further statement made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw in the course of his speech last Monday. It will be found at page 967 of Hansard. He said:
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?
I find-if this is necessary to clinch my point -that the hon. member is again repeating what is contained on the first page of Mr. Volckman's letter, but without telling us the source
Georgian Bay Canal Company

of his argument. This is what the secretary of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company wrote:
The Georgian bay canal will immediately short-circuit the Buffalo to the seaboard traffic,-
Hon. members can read the remainder of that paragraph for themselves, as no doubt they all have la copy of this circular letter. When we consider that this bill is being sponsored, not by a single member of the treasury bench, but by certain hon. gentlemen who have made only such broad and general statements as those I have quoted, I say it is incumbent on us all to carefully weigh the sound arguments advanced and the facts submitted in support of those arguments by those who are opposed to this bill before we send it on to the railway committee.
I want to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House generally to the final joker in this bill. I have said that it is illegal, that it is inequitable, that it is unconscionable, that in a word, it is bad business, whatever it may have been in its original form. I ask hon. members to refer to the concluding paragraph of the last section of the bill:
~ if the said canals are not completed and put in operation within the said periods respectively, the powers granted to the company by parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects $o much of the said canals and works as then remains uncompleted.
What does that mean? It means that we are being asked to give this company the right to build a power project as part of a chimerical canal scheme, and when it suits their purpose they can say, " Well, you can cancel the contract, but we have the right to retain the works completed." That is what we are asked to decide on to-night as a matter of principle. Will any hon. member opposite say it is fair to send the bill to the railway committee and thus express our adoption of that principle? I say, No, Sir!
There is one other element to be considered. Already we have suffered enough from the loss of our natural resources to .our neighbours to the south. As good business men we want to deal with them but in the way most advantageous to ourselves. I submit, Sir, that the passing of this bill simply means that another of our great heritages will be delivered into the lap of the United States. Yet we are sitting in front of our tents with folded hands and allowing our neighbours to walk off with our most treasured resources! This is not a partisan issue, and must not be considered as such by the House. Therefore I appeal to every hon. member and to the 
government not to transgress provincial rights by adopting the principle of this bill, but to deal with it in this light, of what people will think of our decision twenty years hence. We are not dealing with the people primarily affected as citizens of the provinces, we are dealing with them as citizens of Canada. And we are not dealing with the details of the bill, we are dealing with the rights of the citizens of this Dominion, and it is for this House to decide now as a matter of principle whether we are going to preserve this great asset for the people of Canada or whether we are going to hand it over to a specially privileged corporation.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Because of the connection of any matter of canalization with the department over which I have the honour to preside, and especially because numerous references have been made from both sides of the House to leases, past or present, which have a bearing upon the subject matter of this debate, I deem it necessary to give to the House, if possible, some accurate information respecting the history of what I might call "The bone of contention", because beyond any question that bone of contention is the Carillon power. There is not a member of the House who is not aware of that fact, nor is there a member who does not know also that the contention for the bone is, at the present time, not between any public ownership bodies, but between two great private interests.
A great deal of misinformation has been placed before the House during this debate, largely, I presume, because the usual method of dealing with a private bill has not 'been followed. Many of the statements made in the House, if made before the select committee on railways and canals, could have been dealt with and the facts ascertained, if necessary, from witnesses under oath. Instead, however, we are reduced to a debate on the second reading of a private bill, and because of that departure a great deal of inaccurate information is being put on Hansard and sent out through the press to the country.
What is the present position of Carillon? The present position is that a dam and locks exist there, erected by the Department of Railways and Canals, in connection with the navigation of the Ottawa river. As a result of the erection of the present dam by the then government, a head of water was produced, which of course is a source of power. Back in 1913, as was stated by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) this afternoon, a lease of the power was granted by the government

Georgian Bay Canal Company
of that day to private interests. And the government of 1913, as every hon. member knows, was a Conservative government. The lease was the usual departmental lease, and I am not criticizing the action of that government in granting it, because all through the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, where the Department of Railways and Canals throughout the years has constructed canals, it has been the departmental practice to lease the water-power secured by the creation of every such head of water to anyone who might offer to lease it when it was available. Indeed, I brought down to the House this session and laid on the table, at the request of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), a return showing all the leases presently existant, the rates charged for them, and so forth. Ever since water-power in any form has been used in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, from the earliest days after confederation, it has been the practice of the Department of Railways and Canals to lease to private parties or to public utility organizations the water-powers so obtained. Along the canals constructed by the department water-powers created by the Dominion in the process of construction have been so disposed of, and this original lease, of 250 horse-power only, was granted in 1913 to the National Hydro Company. We come next to the year 1921, and to the very significant date in that year of November 30. The report of the minister is dated November 30, and great expedition was displayed by council in convening. They met the next day, December 1, and passed an order in council which constituted the fi."st governmental departure on the Ottawa river and canals from the principle of leasing powers created by the Department of Railways and Canals and the adoption of the principle of giving to private enterprise the right to future development of power at these points.


Edward James Young: Was not that departure consented to by both provinces of Ontario and Quebec?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have no record of such consent from either province in 1921 respecting this lease.


Edward James Young: That, I am informed, is the case.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will allow this bill to go to the committee it will be possible to bring down all the records of the department. There are a number of significant dates in connection with this matter. For example, I am reminded that December 1, 1921, was just a few days before the election of that year, which I believe was held on
December 6. The people of Canada were just then deciding upon a government to carry on the affairs of the country, and upon the eve of the return of a new parliament, this great departure was taken, by these ardent advocates of government ownership, in giving for the first time this considerable concession at Carillon. May I observe that it is estimated that 300,000 horse-power can be developed at Carillon. Figures have been given to the House by various speakers indicating that the whole course of the Ottawa river is capable of producing 1,000,000 horse-power. That, I believe, is the estimate quoted by my hon. friend who last spoke as well as by others. Now, a considerable quantity of that horsepower has already been developed at Chaudiere, while there has been developed 250 horse-power at Carillon. There has been no development at Chats falls. But hon. gentlemen who talk so freely to-day about the great principle of preserving these powers for the use of the public were the very ones who in 1921 were willing to give away, and did actually give away, until the year 2006,
300,000	horse-power of this potential 1,000,000 which is being discussed at the present time. There have been various renewals in between, consequent upon the situation created as a result of the original lease, and we come next to August 26, 1926. Again, there was an election on; there was an election on the fourteenth day of September of that year. And what was done on that occasion?


Mr. KAISER:: What do you wish to insinuate? ?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am merely making
statements of fact; that is all. On August 26, 1926,-and I call attention especially to this fact inasmuch as the mover of the amendment was a member of the government that passed it-an order in council was issued with respect to this matter. We on this side are being accused by inference, in every address delivered opposite, of favouring the giving away of Canada's natural resources to private interests. We are being asked by every speaker what our attitude is as a government. "Insinuation" does someone say? Why every speech made by hon. members opposite has been filled with the insinuation that the members of this government have no concern about the public rights of the people of Canada. An amendment has been moved and what is the wording of it??
The character and object of this bill involve matters of grave national and provincial importance, and are such as to constitute it a measure of public policy which ought not to be dealt with by any private bill.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Hon. gentlemen opposite do not applaud the reading of the amendment. I can well imagine the situation in which they find themselves. This at least is a bill before this parliament. The action taken by hon. gentlemen opposite in August, 1926, and I will describe it in detail in a few moments, was the disposition to a private corporation of no less than 300,000 horse-power of the total developed along the Ottawa river without coming to this parliament or giving this parliament a chance to express its opinion. The lease which I mention-which was executed in 1921 and which established the principle to which I have been referring-had not yet expired. That lease did not expire until the first day of December, 1926. Hon. gentlemen opposite if they had been so concerned with the public weal might at least have awaited the election of a new parliament and allowed the people's representatives so elected to have discussed the lease which did not expire until the first day of December, 1926. But no. Action was taken. On the 26th day of August the lease was extended and a supplement to it was created. I have had that supplement examined and analysed, and this is what it did: It renewed the old lease and added some provisions to it. It reduced the aggregate rental payable to this Dominion under the terms of the former lease by no less than $600,000. That is one thing which it did.


Mr. ROBB:: What did the Minister of
Finance do?


Mr. BENNETT:: Was not the hydro-electric of Ontario a party to that transaction? That was the reason for the change in rental.'


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am glad the former
Minister of Finance has asked that question. The hydro of Ontario was not a party to that agreement, is not mentioned in that order in council, and there is absolutely no documentary evidence in the Department of Railways that the hydro of Ontario had anything whatsoever to do with it. That is not the only change. Six hundred thousand dollars less revenue to the Dominion over the term of the supplemented lease as compared with the rental receivable under the former lease! That was accomplished by a device which I shall be very glad to go into in detail and bring documentary evidence to prove before the committee, which was the way I expected to be able to deal with what I am now discussing as being the proper way to do it. There was another provision my hon, friend says and that the hydro of Ontario was a party to it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And made its own terms.


Charles Avery Dunning: I should like my hon.
friend to produce the evidence of it, because it is very strange that not a vestige of anything of that sort is on the departmental file.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What did you do with it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What did you do with
it?


An hon. MEMBER:: Take it back.


Charles Avery Dunning: Moreover my hon. friend's insinuation compels me now to go further and to say this-that the order in council of August, 1926, was never communicated to the Department of Railways and Canals until this government came into office. The officers-


Richard Bedford Bennett: A misstatement has been made. The Acting Minister of Railways made a recommendation. Why not be fair about it?


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course the Acting
Minister of Railways made a recommendation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yet you did not know
anything about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, I say this: the
permanent officials of the Department of Railways and Canals were never advised of the contents of this order in council until after this government came into office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the
hon. gentleman said.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what he said.


Ernest Lapointe: That is what he said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What he said was that
the Department of Railways had no knowledge of it. I did not contradict that statement. Now he says the permanent officials did not know of it, which is an altogether different thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is really
trying to divert me from my argument.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not a bit.


Charles Avery Dunning: He knows perfectly well
that no order in council can pass without the recommendation of a minister of the crown behind it, or at least the recommendation of an acting minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Charles Avery Dunning: And when I refer to the Department of Railways itself does any member of this House misunderstand what I mean?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: None.


Charles Avery Dunning: I meant that the anting
minister of that day kept the contents of this order in council, and his recommendation in *connection therewith, secret from the officers [DOT]of his own department until after the election was over.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sir Henry Drayton is
not here to answer to that accusation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that Sir Henry
Drayton is not here and cannot reply.


Charles Avery Dunning: This constitutes merely
one additional reason why we should have a committee and why we should get the facts because they are obtainable. I would call not only the officials of the Department of Railways and Canals but also the Clerk of the Privy Council before such a committee and hear what they have to say in connection with this matter, and I would like to ask my hon. friend-[DOT]


Richard Bedford Bennett: What has that got to
do with the Georgian bay canal?


Charles Avery Dunning: It has a very great deal to do with the amendment now before the House.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has a very great deal
to do with the amendment now before the House. I think, Mr. Speaker, I have permitted interruptions fairly generously. I know what my hon. friend's motive is of course. It is quite plain and he is very dexterous in the accomplishment of it. He knows I am speaking without a prepared brief before me but just the documents bearing on the case, and it is very easy to divert me from the course I have set for myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall not interrupt my hon. friend.


Charles Avery Dunning: To come back to the
thread of my story: What then was the other changed feature in this order in council, in this new lease? I will read it. Just a few -days before the election:
The minister further recommends that should the company secure the cooperation of either or both the governments of the provinces of 'Ontario and Quebec in the power phase of the
improvement project, and on "a basis satisfactory to Your Excellency in Council, one-third of the total rentals shall become payable to each of such cooperating governments, as a credit upon any rentals such provincial governments may exact.
What, pray, does that mean? It means that if this private corporation should by operation of law or otherwise be shown to have to pay a rental to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec this Dominion government would very kindly pay that rental for them so that the terms of the lease and their own profits would not be interfered with thereby. I may say that the lease itself which I have somewhere among my documents carried that idea out in a very peculiar form and illustrates one of the reasons why the present government undertook to cancel the order in council and cancel the lease covered by it. I will come to the action of the present government and the reasons for it in a little while.
In reference again to this question of cooperation with the provincial governments, this is the actual lease agreement in that regard, and after all the lease agreement is what counts:
And whereas the company has consented to secure forthwith the cooperation of the governments of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario-
The company graciously consented to secure forthwith.
-on a basis satisfactory to the Governor General in Council in carrying out the development and distribution of the power under applicable provincial laws in order that a dependable source of hydro electric energy may be made available, and it is desirable that the arrangement for payment of the rentals reserved in lease No. 24414 be readjusted to permit the company to be credited with any rentals payable under provincial law-s up to but not exceeding in each case, one-third of the total rentals so reserved.
And so on. That is the only item in the lease in question which has any bearing whatsoever upon any possibility of arrangement as between this private interest, called the National hydro and the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. I would ask any lawyer in the House- to examine that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that the hon.
member will lay it on the table.


Charles Avery Dunning: The document has been on the table for weeks. It was placed there in order that information might be obtained by * hon. members as to the nature of the document. If that means anything to my hon. friends who sit on the front benches opposite and who are both lawyers, I will say as a layman that this particular section compels that
Georgian Bay Canal Company

private corporation to do nothing. It means merely that if they do make some arrangement with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, then the Dominion government will consent to forego two-thirds of the rentals properly coming to it, in order that the private corporation shall not have to pay the rentals out of its own pocket. It is a guarantee that the profits which the private corporation might expect to receive as a result of this lease, should not be impaired by reason of any litigation which would compel it to pay anything to the provincial government The Dominion government was made to guarantee to the extent of two-thirds of its own properly receivable rentals in order that the * company in question should not have to pay rentals to the provincial governments. That is the interpretation which I put upon it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word is " exact "-
what the provinces shall exact.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: As of right.
, Mr. DUNNING: In other words if the provinces prove that they have the right to collect any rentals from this great, private corporation, the lease says that the private corporation shall not be called upon to pay them. That is exactly what it says. There is no question that is exactly what it means.


Hugh Guthrie: That would be because the Dominion had no legal right to collect.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Any child knows that.


Hugh Guthrie: Subject to arrangement
with the provinces.


Charles Avery Dunning: Very well, but that is not the language of the agreement. Perhaps my hon. friends might go further and tell me whether it was in the interest of the provinces to reduce the aggregate rentals due to the Dominion under the terms of this lease to $600,000 below what the Dominion would have received under the former lease. I am willing to sit down and let them tell me how that would have benefited the provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The provinces are the
judges of that. The Hydro Electric made its own bargain.


Mr. DUN NING:: My hon. friend cannot
have given this matter any thought.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We shall see presently.
He knows more about it than my hon. friend does.


Charles Avery Dunning: Apart altogether from the feature which I have been discussing of rentals which are due or which might prove to be due to the provinces, the general terms of the rentals were reduced by an aggregate of $600,000 over the period of the lease.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because they had to'
be.


Charles Avery Dunning: Because they had to be,,
my hon. friend says. It is astonishing that the government of to-day has not in its possession the information and the tentative agreement which my hon. friends opposite are-referring to every few moments. We have not got them. What did we do? We looked the matter over and decided that it was a fairly big thing for a government to undertake such, an agreement on the eve of an election. I presume it was in the interest of public ownership, on the eve of an election to dispose of
300,000	out of 1,000,000 horse-power on the Ottawa river until the year 2006 to a private-corporation, and to keep the matter secret, not to tell the public of Canada about it during the election. Perhaps my hon. friend would like to get up and say why it was kept secret from the people of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why does my hon. friend say that this bargain was made for 2008 when it was made in 1921? The bargain of 1926 was a ratification and extension of it, and a reduction of the rental was brought about because the Ontario Hydro insisted on getting power at a certain price.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
mean that it was necessary in the interest of the provinces not to let the people of Canada know anything about it? My hon. friend has advised me that he is going to follow me, and he is at liberty to do so. I would much prefer, instead of listening to what I know will be a clever speech from my hon. friend, to get this whole question of the Ottawa river navigation and power before a special committee of this House so that we may examine witnesses and secure the facts instead of making speeches one against the other.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Send for Senator Mc-
Dougald.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: They have not now. This is a Georgian bay canal bill. What a bluff?


Charles Avery Dunning: What did we do? We cancelled the contract and cancelled the order in council, but we renewed the 1921 lease which was still in existence until May 1, 1927, the date upon which the Georgian bay charter will expire. Why did we do that? With the deliberate objective of putting this whole matter before parliament, this matter which hon. gentlemen opposite had done secretly ostensibly in the interest of the provinces, as they say. The people of the Dominion were not to know about it. No, this is not a conflict between private and public interests.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am glad of the evidence that I am embarrassing my hon. friends. They always want to interrupt when that is the case.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Do I understand my hon. friend does not wish me to ask questions?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. Ask a dozen.


Alexander McKay Edwards: I understood my hon. friend to say that this action was taken with the deliberate intention of bringing this matter before the House.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Was it at
the instance of the government that the hon. member for Ottawa introduced this bill?


Charles Avery Dunning: Not at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does it mean?


Charles Avery Dunning: This matter would have
been brought before the House in any case, and my hon. friend well knows that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Deliberate intention of
the government!


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, the deliberate' intention of the government.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Acting
through a private member.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, Mr. Speaker, we certainly were not acting for the National Hydro or any other private interest in what we did in regard to this matter. It is before parliament, and we knew it was inevitable it should be before parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You said deliberate intention.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will not be discourteous to my hon. friend when he is speaking. I say again, and the Prime Minister will confirm it, that it was the deliberate intention of the government to place this whole matter before parliament. Notice was, of course, given of application for renewal of what is known as the Georgian bay canal charter, and we then knew that the opportunity would in the ordinary course of events come in connection with the bill in committee. The newspapers of the country in discussing the matter made it perfectly plain that there would be a conflict on it, and where in the nature of things did we expect the conflict to come? In the place where hon. gentlemen opposite are afraid to have it, the place where witnesses can be called, the place where the facts can be ascertained, and the place, too, where action in no sense deprives this House of its opportunity to deal with the measure in any way it may deem fit.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: May I ask a question?
The hon. leader of the opposition made this statement, which I wish the Minister of Railways would dwell upon. He said that if the House allowed a private bill to have its second reading, that committed the House to approval of the principle of the bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what the hon. leader of the opposition said, but he knows perfectly well that if the committee reports favourably upon the bill, or if it brings in an amended bill, this House can deal with the committee's report and accept or reject it as it sees fit. He also knows perfectly well that this House can reject the bill on its third reading.


Hugh Guthrie: I think the hon. minister-


Charles Avery Dunning: May I be permitted, Mr. Speaker, to continue? I sat and listened to my hon. friend posing as the great champion of public ownership, and never interrupted him at all although I knew perfectly well that he was a member of the government that passed this iniquitous order in council last August. Can he not possess his soul in


Richard Bedford Bennett: For Sifton.
Georgian Bay Canal Company

patience and let me tell my ihon. friend who has put the question what opportunities this House will have to kill this bill, if it so desires, after it comes back from the committee, if it does.
In the first place, the bill may be killed in the committee itself. Why, when we pass divorce bills here on the second reading, does any hon. member suppose that many members of this House are agreeing to the principle of divorce? Not at all; they would not do it on any account. They pass the second reading, not because they are in agreement with the principle of divorce, but in order to permit the merits of that particular case to be examined in accordance with the laws of this country. In connection with this particular bill, the committee may kill the bill. It may refuse to report; and if it reports, the House can either accept or re-j ect its report; and on the third reading again, it can reject the bill. Still another opportunity remains to reject the bill on the motion that it do now pass.
If I might be permitted to explain why that argument was advanced by the opposition, it was not in the interests of public ownership at all, or in the interests of the rights of the provinces, but in order to prevent a thorough threshing out of everything connected with this project before a committee of the House where witnesses can be called. I am not speaking in support of the bill. I speak as a member representing a constituency, free to do as I wish in connection with this matter. There may be those on this side of the House who will disagree with me, and they have a perfect right to do so, but I do say with the knowledge I have as the minister of one department intimately concerned with this matter, that because of the very reasons advanced by hon. gentlemen in the far corner of the chamber particularly, we should examine this whole matter. We can still deal in this House with the bill afterwards. There is nothing to "prevent it. All the technical objections of my legal friends opposite do not change the fact that this House can deal with the bill either yes or no, after it comes back from the committee. I am very sorry, indeed, myself, to have to make statements on the second reading of the bill, because I have been complaining of the inaccuracy of certain statements made by others. I would much prefer to have my statements examined in a committee of the House where witnesses could be called and the facts ascertained, and if my hon. friends are so positive that i am entirely wrong, why do they not allow this 
bill to go to the committee where they will have a chance to prove me in the wrong? They have that opportunity, but they refuse to embrace it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have nothing to
do with this bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: Nothing to do with this bill? Why, Mr. Speaker, I will take a chance even of saying this, that had we not undone the arrangement made with the National Hydro-not with the public Hydro of Ontario; let that be understood-there is not a word in the lease which makes it conditional upon an arrangement with the Hydro, of Ontario, not a word, and if we had not cancelled that lease, in all human probability this House would not be discussing this matter at all. It would in all probability have been dealt with as it was on the previous fourteen occasions on which it was before this House.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition, for whom I have a very great respect-I hope nothing I have said to-night will be taken by him in any personal sense; it was not so intended-says:
The character and object of this bill involve matters of grave national and provincial importance, and are such as to constitute it a measure of public policy which ought not to be dealt with by any private bill.
May I ask him if those conditions did not obtain in 1924, when the charter was last renewed, if they obtain to-day? Did they not exist in 1921, if they obtain to-day? The hon. gentleman who last spoke (Mr. Young) referred to the shortage of power in Ontario during the last number of years, and spoke of schemes for stand-by plants, and all that sort of thing. Those same conditions existed when this charter was renewed on the last four or five occasions, but apparently they never assumed the position in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite of being of grave national and provincial importance until this particular occasion, and I submit that they only become of grave national and provincial importance on this occasion because this government had the courage to cancel a lease which was given while an election was in progress to the greatest private interest in Canada. That is why it assumed a position of national importance in the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. I yield to no man in this House in my desire to see-


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand that the
minister is arguing that this is a struggle between two groups of private capitalists, and that the cancellation of the order in council of 1926 eliminated one group.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the defeat of this
bill eliminate the chances of the other group?


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is wrong
in understanding that the other group was eliminated, and the best evidence that it was not is in the House on this occasion. I hold no brief for either, but I am desirous that this House should have the opportunity of getting all the facts in relation to the Ottawa river. I recognize this, speaking as a minister that there must ultimately be developed some arrangement which is satisfactory not only to the Dominion on the one hand, but to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec on the other; there is no question about that. But I do not agree that the Dominion in making such an arrangement requires to surrender any rights which properly and constitutionally belong to the Dominion.
I propose as a member of this House to vote, not for this bill, because this vote is not a vote for or against the bill, in my view; it is a vote either to send the bill to the committee for examination or not to send it to the committee. I am not afraid, Mr. Speaker, to have all the facts come out before the committee on railways and canals, and for that reason I propose to vote for a course which will ensure that all the facts will be placed before that committee.	.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the House owes a
debt of gratitude to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) for having cleared away a great deal of the camouflage which has surrounded this bill. I listened intently to his speech and I heard not one word from the Minister of Railways with regard to the navigation project which the bill is supposed to include. The minister admitted, with a great deal of frankness, which I think was very admirable, that the real question is that of the Carillon power, not that of the navigation of the Ottawa river or the building of the Georgian Bay canal. That is what the bill purports to deal with. The minister himself has stated that that was not the question before the House, but rather the question of the Carillon power. He said the real struggle was between two great private groups, but he did not intimate who those groups were. He took it for granted, I think, that all of the members of this House who have been lobbied for the last two or three weeks have some idea at least as to who these groups are.


Thomas McMillan: Does the hon. member
mean to convey the idea that all hon. members of this House have been lobbied on this question?	T I ] ][DOT] G



REVISED

James Shaver Woodsworth: I did not suggest
that they had.


Thomas McMillan: Yes, the hon. member
did.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know some of
us have been.


An hon. MEMBER:: Some do not require it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As one who has
been lobbied from both sides, and as one who has tried to read some of the elaborate memoranda which have been submitted and which we have heard repeated in this House, I would say that I have come to the conclusion, after studying the matter, that we are facing to-day a much bigger question than we had imagined when the bill was introduced a few weeks ago.
The minister says that this is not a struggle between public and private interests. I say that it is most unfortunate that it is not. Some of us would like to make it such a struggle. It may be that some of us have been deluded, as the minister suggests. It is well known that we are in favour of public ownership. I think the minister does us the credit for believing that we are in favour of public ownership.


Charles Avery Dunning: I said so.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. I do not
know that 1 need to elaborate the statement I have made. I read two of the clauses of the election manifesto of our Labour group on which I was elected to this House. We advocate:.
1. First, regaining for the use of the people of this country the natural resources which have been so recklessly alienated by incompetent or venal administration.
Second, public ownership and democratic operation of public utilities; and as soon as possible of essential large scale industry.
I believe that a very large number of farmer members across the country have been elected to advocate public ownership. I noticed recently in one of the papers that the platform of the United Farmers in Manitoba includes:
Public ownership and control of those public utilities which come within the jurisdiction of the province, and operation of such under commissions responsible to the legislature.
They further advocate:
The retention of all water-power sites, that the hydro electric system may be gradually extended for the benefit of the rural as well as urban residents with the least possible discrimination in rate3.
We in this corner stand firmly on the principle of public ownership. I think it is



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Georgian Bay Canal Company
most fortunate that we are told that we cannot make this matter a struggle between public ownership and private ownership, but rather that it must be made a struggle between one set of private interests and another set of private interests. If we can only speak loudly enough in this chamber, it seems to me we may yet bring before the attention of the country at Large the underlying struggle that faces us. I do not propose to discuss the matter, but it may be quite true that the Conservatives have been guilty of all that they are accused of by the Minister of Railways, of iniquitous orders in council, and so on, but for the life of me I cannot see boiw that alters the principle we are dealing with to-day.
The minister pleaded that the bill should go to committee. As I understand the amendment, it would preclude the bill from going to the committee. That is a matter of policy, as to which course we should adopt. As far as I can judge from my experience in this House, the reason for the second reading is largely that we may determine the underlying principle, and we who are firmly convinced that there should be public ownership, it seems to me, have but one course open, and that is to insist upon that principle being established, even at this early stage of the proceedings. I am not very much concerned with what might happen in committee. It may be quite true that it would give the Liberals the opportunity of raking over some of the ill-doing of the Conservatives. I do not know whether that would benefit the country a great deal. It might ibe that there would be certain modifications introduced into this bill. I should hope so, but the outstanding fact is that we are asked by this bill to grant a charter which was given primarily for navigation purposes, and which the minister says is now not for navigation purposes but to secure power rights which were not considered when the charter was first secured.
It seems to me that a few points that have gradually emerged in the course of the debate are worthy of special mention. While nomin- . ally this is a navigation scheme, its claims as such have not been fully established and to-day we are told it is not in reality a navigation scheme. I want to refer to that navigation scheme for a moment or two. In the last thirty years things have radically changed. I have not been one of those who thought the Hudson bay outlet was going to offer a solution of the grain route for western Canada, but the western members have urged the Hudson bay as the route for the western 
grain. If so, and that route is to be proceeded with, it materially alters the situation with regard to the advisability of establishing still another waterway-the old Georgian bay canal route. Furthermore, we are told that the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway will be undertaken shortly. With the great American nation anxious to cooperate in that work there is a much better prospect of its being carried out. If so, this too will alter the condition of affairs. Whatever fancy pictures may be painted by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen), following the lines of the memorandum submitted to us by some of the lobbyists for this bill, I do not think we can imagine every little port along the Ottawa as a sea port. The bill itself provides for the charging of canal tolls, and certainly it is difficult to conceive of such a route being able to compete successfully with routes that are free of tolls.
The fact remains that for over thirty years this project has failed to attract sufficient capital to push it through. Now we are told expressly by the promoters that they are going to rely upon the development of the water-powers at this end of the route to build the stretches that lie further to the west and north. Some time ago I asked what guarantee we had of the completion of this route. There is none whatever apparent in the bill. As far as we can see the only proviso along this line at all is that the government may take over the uncompleted part of the project. That is, after the remunerative part has been secured and developed, and money made out of it, if the navigation scheme does not go through the government may take over the uncompleted canal work.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the introduction of this bill is an anachronism. With regard to these great public enterprises we are passing more and more into the sphere of Dominion or provincial ownership and to give an important franchise of this character to a company ostensibly organized for navigation purposes, but now confessedly seeking a renewal of its charter because of the waterpower privileges involved, would seem to me absolutely going back on the principles of public morality which are coming to be more fully recognized to-day.
The strongest argument -advanced in favour of this bill is that it would check-mate the Holt interests. Well, personally, I should be very glad to check-mate those interests, but I do not see the advantage of setting up another set of interests that may prove equally dangerous to this country. Nor, on the other hand, do I see any ultimate guarantee of

Georgian Bay Canal Company
safety by having two rival groups of interests at work. In the natural course of events this would probably mean that ultimately they would combine, as has so frequently happened in the past, and then we would be worse off than ever. We are forced to the conclusion that this is a fight for supremacy between two sets of powerful interests, and that under these circumstances the welfare of the public at large is in grave danger.
The other day I noticed the Electrical World, one of the most reliable of American magazines in this field, estimated in its issue of January 2, 1926, that the grand total of electrical consumption in the United States during 1925 was 47,997,000,000 kilowatt hours, for which was paid $1,389,000,000, or an average of 2.9 cents per kilowatt hour. Commenting on this an American writer points to Ontario as the bright spot on this continent in respect to cheap light, heat and power and states:
The grand total of Ontario sales was 1,157,000.000 kilowatt hours for which the people paid $19,137,000, or an average of 1.65 per kilowatt hour.
If we Americans had paid Ontario rates we would have saved ourselves in 1925 $600,000,-
000.
He makes that statement concrete by pointing out that in 1925 in the United States electric current for domestic use cost 7.5 cents per kilowatt hours, while in Ontario it cost only 1.85 cents per kilowatt hour. That is, the Americans paid four times what we were paying in Ontario. Naturally this writer urges public ownership as the remedy for conditions in the United States. And should we at this time go back on the principle of public ownership in the interest of one particular private group, even although it may be used to check-mate another private group-at least, for the time being?
We have had two outstanding examples of the success of public ownership in Canada- the Ontario provincial hydro electric commission and the municipal enterprise in my own city of Winnipeg. These two enterprises point the way to still greater successes in the domain of public ownership. The trouble is that we as a whole are not yet committed to the public ownership and operation of such enterprises. I frankly admit that probably the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) is right when he says that at the present stage this is not a struggle between public and private ownership. But until we settle this matter of the public ownership of the great natural resources of this country undoubtedly it would be better for us to go slowly and not commit ourselves, as the Minister of 32649-764
Railways says has been done, until the year 2006. We may readily do that in connection with a bill such as this now under discussion.
In passing, let me call attention to a suggestion made the other night by the member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). He urged that Canada should buy that portion of Labrador which under the recent judgment of the Privy Council is to pass to Newfoundland. Why? In order that we may retain in Canada the important water powers in that territory. But I would ask the House, supposing we should do that at a cost of millions and millions of dollars, what would we do to-morrow with our purchase? We would (urn those powers over to private interests. Now, I would like for a little while to ask the House to consider the larger issues at stake. I think it is pretty generally recognized that we have three or four large companies, or groups of companies, that are trying to secure a monopoly of the water powers of Canada, those groups being the International Paper Company, the Spanish-Abitibi, the Holt group, and lately the Sifton group. About a year ago we had the International Paper Company reaching a long arm into Canada and establishing connections up the Gatineau. The House may remember that at least some of us were strongly opposed to the entrenchment of this great American corporation in this country. It will also be remembered that we viewed with considerable apprehension even the buying of power by the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario from that company. I do not very often quote the Toronto Telegram, but sometimes we can learn even from papers with which we do not always agree. I think the case was well put by the Telegram in these words:
The weakness and seriousness of buying power from private companies is two-fold. Rates which the people must pay cover interest and sinking fund charges on the capital investment. The people thus create a debt-free property for a private company instead of for themselves. At the end of the contract period the private company owns the development, paid for by the users of power and light: the consumers, who have paid for the property, however have no right or title in it.
I heard one of the advocates of the present bill say the other day, using the very words, I think, of the prospectus of the company, that this scheme will not cost the people of Canada a cent. That, I say, is an utterly fallacious way of putting it. If the Georgian bay canal were ever built, it would be built entirely by the people by means of higher power rates. That is the very scheme the company themselves propose. The Telegram goes on:
[Stage Direction]
Georgian Bay Canal Company
The Gatineau contract will enable the corporation developing this power to create a $45,000,000 debt-free property for private owners out of the revenue secured from the sale of power to the public ownership hydro system in Ontario. This huge sum will be taken out of the pockets of the Ontario public to create a privately owned instead of publicly owned plant. Not only will the company own the plant at the end of the contract period, but they will also be in a position to dictate terms as to a further supply of power. The hydro will be in a position where they will have to pay whatever price is asked, or seek elsewhere for power.
Let me discuss for a moment this International Paper Company, one of those huge concerns whose influence is spreading - right across Canada, I understand that the International Paper Company is the largest manufacturer of paper in the world and one of the largest holders of water-power and timber limits in North America. The capacity of its mills is more than twice as great as that of any other on this continent, while its freehold and leasehold timber limits cover more than 12,000,000 acres. It owns and operates twenty-two pulp and paper mills, located in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York and Louisiana in the United States, and in the provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario in Canada. The chief Canadian subsidiaries of the International Paper Company include the Canadian International Paper Company, the New Brunswick International Paper Company, the Gatineau Paper Company, the St. John River Power Company and the Continental Products of Canada.
Mr. BOURASSA:: What about the E. B. Eddy Company?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not sure whether that is one of the subsidiaries of the International or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it will interest you I may say it is not.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) says it is not; he ought to know. I should like to read in this connection, if the House will bear with me, an article recently published in Forward
of Glasgow, Scotland, by Mr. J. T. Walton Newbold in which reference is made to the International Paper Company. The writer says:
This International Paper Company, whilst virtually related to the New York Tribune. . . has for its chairman of its financial committee the chairman of the Chase Bank of New York, the International Agricultural Corporation, which together handled the financing of the great German Potash Syndicate, which in turn links up with some of the biggest German pulp and paper companies. He is also on the board of one of the world's producers of fertilizers, the big packing houses of Armour and Company of Chicago.
In the interlocking directorate, as James McArthur Conner observes, Mr. Newbold might have added the name Curtis, connected with the Saturday Evening Post, the Ladies Home Journal, and so forth.
The fact is that the moment we touch large corporations of this kind we touch some of the most stupendous industrial concerns on the North American continent; and I cannot read the facts which have been placed at. the disposal of the House in the last few weeks without feeling that we are mere children when we come to handle these tremendous enterprises, of the magnitude 'of which very few of us have dreamed.
I have spoken of this great corporation. Now let me discuss briefly the National Hydro-Electric, which secured a lease from the federal government of water-powers on the Carillon section of the Ottawa river. I am not able to prove it, but I presume that every hon. member recognizes that the National HydroElectric is very largely controlled by the Holt-Shawinigan group. It might be difficult without taking court proceedings-indeed, it might be difficult even then-to show exactly how this control is exercised, but I unhesitatingly say that when we come to the control of the Carillon site we enter distinctly upon the field of the HoltdShawinigan concern. Some hon. gentleman may possibly have seen a day or two ago in some of the newspapers-I saw it in Le Droit of March 11-an interesting diagram indicating the relationships which exist between various corporations. I should like to have this diagram appear in Hansard:
fMr. Woodsworth.]
g
>
Georgian Bay Canal Company

Georgian Bay Canal Company
I would crave the patience of the House while I quote a few parag.-aphs from a valuable series of articles which have been recently appearing in Canada Forward, a small labour paper published in Toronto. These articles are published under the caption "The Ring Around the Hydro" and are the work of Mr. J. McArthur Conner. Speaking ot this group Mr. Conner says:
Its head is Sir Herbert Holt, known as "the power king of Canada". He is a director of the Canadian Pacific Railway and president of the Royal Bank of Canada. On the latter board is the Hon. R. B. Bennett, director of Imperial Oil Company, Canadian General Electric Company and the Calgary Power Company.
I presume that is right so far.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is correct; absolutely.
Mr. WOODSWORTH. I note the hon. member's confirmation of the statement, and I am glad to think that we have in him one of the advocates of public ownership. 1 quote further:
The growth of Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated, therefore, has placed under one single executive direction and management the entire electric lighting power of greater Montreal. The following table will show the several constituent companies of this private ownership monopoly:
Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company. The Montreal Gas Company.
The Royal Electric Company.
Montreal and St. Lawrence Light and Power Company.
Imperial Electric Company.
Lachine Rapids Hydraulic and Land Company.
Citizens Light and Power Company, Limited. Standard Light and Power Company.
Temple Electric Company.
Provincial Light and Heat Company. Provincial Light and Heat and Power Company.
Cedar Rapids Manufacturing Company. Merchants Light and Power Company. Quebec-New England Hydro Electric Corporation.
Dominion Light and Power Company.
St. Pauls Electric Light and Power Company. Montreal Electric Company.
The United Securities Limited, controlled jointly with Shawinigan Water and Power Company and Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated.
The United Securities, Limited, is controlled jointly with the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated and the Shawinigan Water and Power Company.
The mere reading of a long list of this character of interlocking directorates involved in this group shows the serious menace which such a tremendous aggregation of capital and power may mean to this country.
rMr. Woodsworth.]
I quote further:
Sir Herbert Holt is the largest individual shareholder in Price Brothers (with the exception of the Price family). This company is linked up with the Brompton and Laurentide, as these three companies all sell their export through the Canadian Export Paper Company. The St. Maurice Sales sells the output of the St. Lawrence paper mills, Port Alfred and St. Maurice Valley Corporation and some other small mills.
And then a little bit further on:
A year ago the Duke-Price sold a power site on the Saguenay to the Aluminum Company of America, which is one of the Mellon interests and is closely associated with the International Paper Company. At that time Price Brothers owned twenty-five per cent of the stock of the Duke-Price power and the sale of the undeveloped site to the Aluminum Company of America amounted to $4,090,000 par value of six per cent cumulative preferred stock and 36,800 shares of common stock of the Aluminum Company.
That is rather interesting information. Already there seems to be, so far as an outsider can judge, something of a rapprochement between the Shawinigan group and the International Paper Company. I do not profess to have any inside knowledge, but since this long established company of the Price Brothers has been mentioned I am rather interested in knowing just the tremendous powers they are getting altogether outside of the power company. I hold in my hand a very elaborately gotten up report of that company compiled and published by the statistical department of the Royal Securities Corporation Limited in Montreal which shows something of the extent of their business along a great many lines, paper mills, and so on. As to timber areas I quote from their own publication:
While others counted the cost and hesitated, the far-sighted founders of Price Brothers and Company went ahead and secured control of timber areas wherever the opportunity arose. The result of that policy is seen to-day when the company controls no less than 8,564 square miles of Quebec timber limits-an area which is larger than either the state of Massachusetts or the principality of Wales-situated on watersheds tributary to the company's plants on the Saguenay and St. Lawrence rivers.
And on the back page there is a map of England and Wales showing in colour the principality of Wales. The boast by the company is that they control as large an area in the province of Quebec. The report goes on to say:
These timber lands are estimated to contain approximately 45,782,055 cords of pulpwood, sufficient to produce 31,000,000 tons of newsprint paper, or a supply for operation of the company's mills at designed capacity for a period of more than one hundred years without allowing for new growth.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
That ia but one illustration of one small constituent or inter-related company of one of these big concerns with which we are dealing to-night. I come back to the article from which I was reading a few minutes ago as contained in Canada Forward, and there is rather an interesting paragraph which perhaps has some political references. I do not know how far this paragraph contains the truth, but I should like to read it, as it was written on January 15, 1927, long before this bill came before the House:
It will thus be seen at a glance interlocking interests behind Sir Herbert Holt. The political expression of these interests in the Dominion House of Commons is Sir George Perley and the Hon. R. B. Bennett, both of whom control the E. B. Eddy Paper Company at Hull. These members are in the same political party as Thomas L. Church, member for Northwest Toronto. It is to this monopoly under the name of the National Electric Corporation whom Howard Ferguson, in a speech in the Massey hall, November 2G, 1926, said: "The government had succeeded in negotiating its Gatineau contract and with Premier Taschereau's friendly cooperation it was negotiating a contract for power from Carillon."
It may be as the minister says, that we in this section of tihe House are utterly deluded, but I would venture to say that it is quite possible that some of the members-the new members-who spoke enthusiastically about this new project may also have been somewhat deluded.
I come to another matter with relation to politics. This time it is provincial politics, and since other members have not hesitated to closely follow memoranda I venture to follow this outline as contained in the articles to which I have referred:
The Shawinigan Water and Power Company has always been strong, for the government of Quebec. It can boast of having one of Quebec's most influential citizens as a director, Sir Lomer Gouin, a former Premier of Quebec, a director of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Consolidated, the Bank of Montreal and the National City Company. Now the National City Company is the creation of the National City Bank of New York which J. T. Walton Newbold

Former Labour member of the British House, who has recently been studying the interlocking capitalist interests of America.
-tells us: "Was created specially to carry on the investment business and to hold for it and its clients bonds and stocks in companies; was in the orbit of the Standard Oil Company, and in the same sphere as the great loan issuing house of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. This latter house, as its name signifies, had its affiliations more particularly with the German fatherland and to be precise with the very powerful house of M. Warburg and Co., of Hamburg. There was a considerable amount of German money
invested in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which had, of course been sequestrated during the first few years of the war. There Was, however, a way whereby this German money could be kept safe from the confiscation. which it was easily understood would be its fate should the Allies win, that was to transfer it over to an American house, there to be held in trust for its original holders.
"That German money in the Canadian Pacific railway to an amount totalling some $145,000,000 was taken over by the National City Company.
"That was the way in which and the reason for which the National City Company entered Montreal and formed, thereafter, jointly with the Bank of Montreal, the National City Company of Canada. It came in as German interests went out."


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Triumph of democracy.
Mr. WOODSW'ORTH: I am very glad to have had this bit of information from one who is quite an authority on financial interests in Great Britain and Europe.
Now let me come back to Canada. I should like to impress clearly upon the House, especially upon the western members, who perhaps have not been able as yet to understand so clearly the policy of the province of Quebec, that we will have to reckon upon private interests in that province and the confessed policy of maintaining private interests. Let me give a quotation from an advertisement in the Engineering Journal, of July, 1924, by the Shawinigan Water and Power Company:
The policy of the government of Quebec is to give encouragement and protection to the development of water-powers and the building up of industries dependent thereon through private enterprise, combined with regulation and control of storage waters. The province has constructed engineering works of great magnitude to store flood waters and regulate the flow of various power rivers, measures which have proved successful in a striking degree.
And again:
The most notable enterprise of the (Quebec Stream) Commission has been the construction of the Gouin dam on the St. Maurice river, built by contract under the supervision of the commission's engineers, forming a reservoir covering an area of 300 square miles, with a storage capacity of 160,000,000 cubic feet. Similar schemes have been carried out on the St. Francis and St. Anne de Beaupre rivers and Lake Kenogamis on the Chicoutimi river and on the river Metis. To date the commission has spent on completed works about $3,500,-
000.	On this expenditure the commission receives $300,000 from the power companies for the use of the stored water, to provide interest on capital stock, a sinking fund to redeem the bonds, maintenance, and a small profit to the province.
Let me emphasize the phrase, "a small profit to the province." That is, these enormous expenditures are incurred very largely for the

Georgian Bay Canal Company
sake of the industry, in the hope, I presume, that indirectly the industry may profit the people. But I would point out that it is by no means a case of public ownership with all the benefits which public ownership involves. I am not going into the ramifications of these various concerns which have their connections, not only all over Canada and the United States, but in almost every country of Europe. For example, Sir Herbert Holt is a director of the United Securities, and he has lately become associated with Alfred Loewenstein by becoming a director of some of the latter's European hydro-electric enterprises, including the Belguim Sidro Company. Alfred Loewenstein is a well-known banker in Belgium. He has acquired a large interest in Brazilian Traction, Barcelona Hydro Electric, and several other Mexican companies. I could quote at length a number of other connections of this concern. But I want to come back again very close to home, and to point out another of the inter-related questions which force themselves upon us in a consideration of the bearings of the proposal now before the House. Let me quote from the Financial Post of December 10, 1926:
While the re-election of Premier Ferguson in the province of Ontario was joyful news to the "wets" and an additional blow to the "drys," perhaps it has not yet come home to both schools of thought that liquids other than beer and wine were involved in the struggle in that province. The other liquids are of course the water-powers which generate electric power in both provinces.
The election in Ontario means in one sense the dawn of a new era as far as the electrical generation of power is concerned, for in future the electrical projects of "peepul" in Ontario will be carried out hand in hand with the so-called "St. James street" gang; in other words, tie large power interests of the province of Quebec; a situation which perhaps may cause Sir Adam Beck to turn in his grave, but which will nevertheless be welcomed by all thoughtful people.
I do not know how long the debate will continue; but I hope, before it is over, my Conservative friends, with whom I have a good deal of sympathy at this time in regard to their resolution, will be able to throw some light on an editorial of this character, and very definitely to assure us that there is no danger that the Hydro Electric of Ontario will be in any way imperilled. We ought to be very sure of that.
I have spoken of two of the large groups that have been bidding for power in Canada. There comes now the third, which has secured this ancient charter and which, under the old scheme of the Georgian bay canal, is attempting to challenge the power of one, if not of

two, of these older companies. Mr. Harry Sifton come on the scene very prominently during the last election. He was then a director of the Southern Canada Power Company, Limited. I would like to examine that company for a moment. The Southern Canada Power Company, according to the series of articles from which I have been reading, owns and controls the South Shore Power and Paper Company, Limited, La Cie de Gaz Electricite and Pouvoir, the St. Johns Electric Light Company, Brome Lake Railway and Power Company, Richmond County Electric Company, the Sherbrooke Railway and Power Company, Lennoxville Light and Power Company, Limited, Eastern Falls Power Company, International Electric Company of Vermont. These corporations all operate in the St. Lawrence valley below Montreal. This company too has a number of interlocking relationships with other big corporations Let me read on:
When we examine the directors' board of this huge monopoly we find the name of J. B. Woodyatt, Montreal, as president. He is also vice-president of the Power Corporation of Canada, and a director of the Winnipeg Electric Company.
Let me interject that we in Winnipeg have for years past been carrying on a continuous fight between the city hydro and the Winnipeg Electric Company. We are not uninterested in these great trusts in the east because they directly relate themselves to our struggle in the city of Winnipeg. I proceed:
Another interesting personality on the board is A. J. Nesbitt, President of the Power Corporation of Canada and a director of the Ottawa and Hull Power Company, Limited, and the Canada Northern Power Corporation, Limited. Colonel J. R. Moodie of Hamilton is also on the board. The colonel is well known as a prominent director of the Dominion Power and Transmission Company, Limited. The monopoly is also w'ell represented in parliament by two prominent Liberals in the person of W. R. Baldwin, who is President of the Perth Feldspar and Mining Company, vice-president of the Rouyn Gold Mines, Limited, and a director of the Canadian U.S. Oil and Refining Company

and George Parent, K.C., of the well known firm of Taschereau, Roy, Cannon and Parent. Mr. Parent is president of the Le Soleil Limitee, vice-president Citadel Brick and Paving Company, and director in the St. Maurice Lumber Company and the Quebec Power Company.


Mr. PARENT:: I thank the hon. member
for the advertising.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The latter company and its subsidiaries are the sole distributors of power for lighting and other industrial purposes in the city of Quebec and surrounding industrial district.

Customs Act Amendment
Just one other matter and I have finished. I turn and note that with regard to the present company whose bill is before us:
The directors of the board of Montreal, Ottawa, Georgian Bay lias on it many Liberal party friends. Its president is the Hon. N. A. Belcourt, a prominent lawyer, member of the House of Senate and a director of La Sauve-garde Life Insurance Company. Associated with him is another senator, Gerald White of Pembroke. Mr. White has numerous interests and they include the Sterling Development Company of Canada, the Steel Equipment Company of Canada, and W. C. Hughson and Company, Limited.
Mr. Speaker, I have ventured to read some of these lists which have been given us in this valuable series of articles simply because I should like the House and the country to realize the intricate and important character of the problem which we are facing at the present time. It involves essentially, as the Minister of Railways and Canals admits, a struggle between two powerful groups-a struggle for power-and I would say that those who are interested in one or the other company are found here as members of this House, or as members of the Senate. I would say that there are direct connections between this bill and the political parties in tthe province of Ontario and the political parties in the province of Quebec. The corporations are so powerful that, as I have tried to show, their relationships are not confined to Canada or the United States, but extend to Great Britain and to various countries of Europe. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that in facing the problem which is raised by this bill we ought not to lend ourselves to playing the game of either one or the other of these conflicting interests. I would not like by voting down this bill to think that I was playing into the hands of the eastern group of interests; but I have no intention whatever, by voting for a bill of this character, of playing into the hands of the so-called Sifton group of interests. What have we in this House to do with one or the other group?
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we are facing this great question, as to whether the natural resources of this country shall be owned and controlled by the people in the interests of the people, or whether they shall be given away to these great corporations which sooner or later will undoubtedly be gobbled up by the still greater American trusts to the south of us. That is the problem that we face to-day. I think we would be on safe ground if we maintain that no power right on any of our rivers shall be given away without the consent of the provinces concerned. I do not think we are justified in giving away any right of this character. I know it may be
said by some members on the government side that the Dominion has the right over navigable streams, and no one doubts that, but the very minister who put forward this plea said that this was not a case of navigation, but a case of power; and when it comes to a case of power, with all that power involves under modern conditions, we must take no action that will surrender this right to any private corporation. The measure comes before us as a navigation measure, but I have no hesitation under the circumstances in voting against it.
It is a plausible argument to urge that we should withhold our decision until the bill comes back from the committee. That has been said again and again, but I cannot see any reason for that course if one is firmly convinced that we ought not to sacrifice public ownership. The bill is undoubtedly giving a charter to a private company for the development of water-power, and whatever the provincial rights may be in the matter, undoubtedly we ought to-day to stand on guard for the general welfare of the people. That is why we have been elected. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I have no recourse but to do my best to defeat this bill at this stage and, if it passes this reading, at any other subsequent opportunity that may offer itself.


Mr. GEARY:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. CHEVRIER:: As the hour is late, Mr. Speaker, I would move the adjournment of the debate.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, I think I had the floor first.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Yes.
On motion of Mr. Geary the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King, the House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
Tuesday, March 15, 1927