1928-03-19

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 70, to incorporate 1,000 Islands International Bridge Corporation.-Mr. Hay.
Bill No. 71, to incorporate The St. Lawrence River Bridge Company.-Mr. Smith (Stormont).


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. STEWART (Minister of the Interior): I beg to lay on the table the report of Alexander Smith, K.C., on the charges of R. A. McClymont.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I
would ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) if it is the intention of the government to take any action concerning the application made by the railways before the Board of Railway Commissioners to deprive shippers of the right to have attendants on the train to look after the stock in transit.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	The whole matter
has been before the Board of Railway Commissioners for some months now, and I believe that it now stands for hearing and determination. The government has no knowledge of the matter outside of the ordinary routine of an application before the board.



CABLE MERGER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: According to cable despatches from London, dated March 15, there has been a virtual merger of the Eastern and Associated Cable companies with the Marconi Company. The holding company for the merger is described in the announcement as subject to the consent of the British, Dominion and Indian governments. The merger, it says, is apparently connected with the deliberations of an Imperial conference set up by Premier Baldwin after the new beam wireless service to Australia had taken forty-five per cent of the Pacific cable business in six months. Can the government give us any information with regard to this matter or inform us how the Dominion government is connected with it?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The matter is a very
large one. My impression is that it has not arisen as is intimated in the despatch to which my hon. friend has referred, out of any discussion at the Imperial conference, but rather out of financial difficulties in connection with the Pacific cable. Perhaps my hon. friend would be willing to wait until we take up the estimates of the Post Office
St. Lawrence Waterway

department in order to get a full explanation of the matter. It comes under the direction of the Postmaster General. Negotiations have been proceeding, and the government has been kept informed. We have been represented on the board in England that has had to do with the matter, and at the appropriate moment all the papers will be laid on the table of the house. Without refreshing my memory, I could not answer a specific question at the moment.



ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY REPORT OF ADVISORY BOARD COMMITTEE AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I would like to ask the right
hon. the Prime Minister whether, in view of what was said in his closing observations on the address in reply to the speech from the throne regarding the desirability of giving as little publicity as possible to the report of the advisory board in connection with the St. Lawrence waterway until certain matters had been dealt with, the time has not arrived when we might reasonably hope to have those papers laid before parliament, especially in view of the fact that a fairly well authenticated report prevails in Washington and also in Ottawa that a communication was sent by this government to Washington, to which a reply had been received. In view of that I suggest that perhaps the representatives of the people in parliament should have the opportunity to see these papers, and if the Prime Minister thinks the public interest would not be prejudiced, he might make some arrangement by which the members of this house would have some idea as to just what the situation is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon. friend will recall, I mentioned in my remarks on the address that a communication had been sent by the government to Washington with reference to the St. Lawrence waterway project. That communication was not replied to until the end of last week. The reply, as a matter of fact, came into my hands only on Friday or Saturday last, and has not yet been communicated to my colleagues in the government. I would say, however, having read the reply, that I am very much of the view that it would scarcely be advisable to make public immediately either the communication which was sent to Washington or the reply which has been received.

It may seem that the government is seeking in some way not to inform the house fully. As to whether we are exercising wise judgment in that matter must be left, I think, until later when the communications themselves are brought down. A transaction of the character in contemplation, if it is ever to come to anything, cannot be surrounded with too many safeguards. While the government has exchanged communications wholly of a preliminary character, which in no particular bind the country' in any way, but which have been exchanged for the purpose of clearing the ground, so to speak, and in order that parliament may be fully informed of any possible basis of negotiations of a final character, should such ever be reached, it is inadvisable I think, and might possibly prejudice the outcome, too soon to present to parliament any of the documents in the matter. The government must take responsibility for withholding for the time being correspondence which it deems inadvisable to' have given to the public. We must be judged later on as to whether or not we have acted wisely. I have no doubt that when hon. members see the correspondence they will feel that the government was justified in not at present making public the two communications that have been exchanged.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wholly appreciate the position taken by the Prime Minister, and he will observe that I asked whether or not in his opinion the time had arrived when we might receive the correspondence, because I realize that in the conduct of government those who direct it must exercise their best judgment and discretion as to whether the interests of the country would be best served by publicity or the retention of the documents in the hands of the government until the time is opportune. I only desired to ask if in the opinion of the Prime Minister that time had not yet arrived.



TRANSPORTATION OF COAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: I desire to ask a question, and to make it intelligible I shall read a single sentence of a resolution passed unanimously by the British Columbia legislature on the 29th of February last. Divested of whereases, it reads:
Be it resolved that this legislative assembly of the province of British Columbia, now in session, believes it would be in the interest of the Dominion of Canada to grant and pay a subsidy to the railroad for the carrying of coal from each province, on a graduated scale to

Transportation of Coal
be regulated by the railroad commission, as per the distance of each province from the markets of Ontario and Quebec.
That was passed unanimously. Saturday's press contained an announcement that the Minister of the Interior had issued an order in council to the effect that a rate of $6.75 per ton for carrying coal from Alberta to Ontario has been established, with the understanding that any difference between that and a fair profit rate to the railways would be paid by the Dominion government. In view of that statement I would ask him a question, or more properly two questions; or as that is not allowed, I will dividte my question into two sections. The first section is: in the order in council has the minister made provision for extending the arrangement to the coal fields of British Columbia, with of course a pro rata increase according to the extra distance ; secondly, as a number of the most important coal fields of British Columbia are located on Vancouver island, where there are no ready means of shipping in trainloads, but very conveniently situated wharves, will the minister undertake to see that the same arrangement is made as regards ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, so that we can ship our coal at a proportionately low rate and possibly-I say possibly-compete in the central1 provinces, markets on the same basis and the like terms, and be accorded the same measure of assistance as that chimed by Alberta?


Mr. SPEAKER:: The question is fairly long and I think the Minister of the Interior ought to be given until to-morrow to submit an answer.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the easiest way to answer the question will be to file the order in council.



MOVEMENT OF NOVA SCOTIA COAL

Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: I wish to ask the Minister of the Interior a question based on an article that appeared in Saturady's Citizen with respect to an order in council authorizing a special rate for the transportation of Alberta coal to Ontario. My question is this:	Presuming that article to be
correct, will the province of Nova Scotia be accorded like treatment for the transportation of coal to the province of Quebec during the winter months-not the summer months.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of
the Interior: The movement of Nova Scotia coal is now under consideration, chiefly by 56103-93
the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), as it is a railway matter.


Mr. HANSON:: How about New Brunswick coal?


Charles A. Stewart: I Should
have said coal from the maritime .provinces.



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. E. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he has yet received a report from the Exchequer Court regarding the claims of Home Bank depositors?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: No.



TRANS-ATLANTIC FLIGHTS CO-OPERATION WITH THE IMPERIAL AUTHORITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Department of National Defence has sent an aeroplane to Maine to help in the search for Captain Hinchcliffe. In view of the unsuccessful but heroic attempts at aerial flights westward from Europe, may I ask if the government has considered the advisability of co-operating in such attempts? I know the fliers may be regarded as foolhardy, but I think Canada would benefit by a successful flight from Great Britain, and I should like to see governmental co-operation with the British authorities.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, where cooperation is asked for or suggested it is readily given, and we have repeatedly co-operated where there may have been failure or prospective failure to complete these trans-atlantic flights. We have made no special arrangements with the Imperial authorities, nor has our co-operation been sought.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE H. PETTIT (Welland) moved that the House go into committee on Bill No. 14 to incorporate the Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company (as amended).
Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, before you declare the motion carried, I crave the indulgence of the house to place on record the opposition of the government of the province of Ontario to this bill, and also the opposition of the Niagara Falls Park Commission. The commission

1452	COMMONS
Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
controls the 2,000 acres of park system from one end of the river to the other. It also controls the river bank and the land under the river up to the international boundary.
To me, Mr. Speaker, it is strange that the government should allow a bill of this kind to pass in face of the opposition of the provincial authorities. Of course, I shall be told that this is a private bill, but when it first appeared on the order paper it contained no declaration that the proposed bridge was a work for the general advantage of Canada, and the government having been instrumental in amending the bill in this respect, must take responsibility for it as a government measure. I say again, it is very strange to me that the government should fly in the face of the provincial government, which controls all the highways up to the bridges on the Niagara river, and, in effect, tell the government of Ontario that a charter is to be granted to this private company to erect a bridge over the river and on the park commission's land.
The opposition of the province of Ontario is not a factious opposition, but is based on sound grounds. The main reason for opposing the charter is that the bridge is not needed, and, further, that it will mar the scenic beauties of both the gorge and the falls. At the present time within a distance of six miles there are four bridges, one for railway traffic and the other three for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In addition, there is a vehicular and pedestrian bridge at Buffalo, as well as a second railway bridge.
The engineer of the Niagara Falls Park Commission appeared before the private bills committee and gave evidence that the present bridges are capable of carrying 100 per cent more traffic; but the promoters did not call an engineer in support of their project.


Charles A. Stewart: Are the
present bridges privately owned?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes, they were built under federal charters. Those charters provide that the tolls to be charged are to come before the governor in council for approval. A new bridge was built last year, and the charter authorizing its construction contained a similar provision. I have inquired both of the Clerk of the Privy Council and of the Public Works department and have ascertained that nothing has been passed approving of the tolls that are being charged. Last year one these bridges under the purview of the federal parliament raised its tolls 100 per cent, without any redress whatever; and the only thing that can be done is to take drastic measures against this tendency. The people appealed to the 
parks commission who, by threatening those in charge with the possibility of some day having action taken to force their hands, got them to restore the tolls to the former figure. They were told that some day they might be wanting something and that they would not get it unless they put the tolls back where they were, and in that way they were forced to restore them.


Mr. EULER:: Do I understand the hon.
member to say that the governor in council in this particular instance, when the tolls were raised, forced them to make the reduction?


James Dew Chaplin: They were not observing the charter. There was in the charter one of those weak kneed clauses providing that the governor in council should approve of their tolls. They never got them approved. They had been charging tolls for twenty years without getting them approved and they were therefore collecting these tolls illegally. But that is aside from the question. The province of Ontario does not want to be afflicted with another such institution. When it is time to have a bridge erected there the province may want to build it. Or this parliament might want to undertake the work. I can say that there is no better investment which anyone can make, and I do not want to see this matter left in private hands. I have seen too much of that sort of thing along the Niagara river. That is one of the reasons for cur objection.
As regards concessions on the river, as I said a moment ago, the parks commission, acting for the province of Ontario, have the whole river in their charge. They even have the power contracts in their charge. To show the value of the parks commission in the last forty years, I may say that the province of Ontario once gave the rights to a power concern for all the power in the Niagara river for $25,000 a year. Fortunately, the commission had a reasonable opportunity to cancel that agreement so that to-day the province of Ontario is receiving a rental from the commission of over $500,000 a year for a concession which originally was given away at $25,000. The province of Ontario has spent $7,000,000 on that front. I may give another illustration of what has been done in this regard. When I first went on the board fifteen years ago we were renting the Table Rock house concession to private individuals. At that time we were getting $4,000 a year and we raised it to $12,000 in a year or two. Those who were enjoying the concession complained and we replied:	"Very well; you
will not have it at all for we will run it ourselves." The result was that the first year

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
we made a profit to the province of $60,000, and last year on the same concession, with the fare reduced 50 per cent, we made a net profit of $125,000.
I object to this bridge on the public ground that, first of all, this parliament has no right to override the province. I am speaking now merely of its moral right. Parliament has no right to go over the heads of the commission; it has no right to give a private concession for money-making purposes over the property of the parks commission. We object further on this ground:	The improvements
which have already made over the present bridges will accommodate 100 per cent more traffic than before without any congestion. As a matter of fact, we know that the congestion last year was less than it was the year before and the year previous to that, and with heavier traffic. All that may be said to the contrary is that in a few instances, on a few days, there has been congestion. No one will dispute that. But we were met with that same objection when the bill was defeated in this parliament last year, and at that time we made a very close analysis of the situation. We put our engineers on the job and we took actual photographs of the scene every day last summer. We have those photographs arranged in order, some ten a day, covering the whole season, and we know just what days were crowded and on what days the traffic was light. There appeared before the committee a gentleman who gave us a couple of photographs-perhaps there were half a dozen of them-and he had the nerve to inform the committee that- these photographs were evidences of what happens every day at the bridge. That, of course, is idle talk; it is sheer nonsense. All I can say is that the people who came forward looking for the charter would say anything on earth in order to secure it. They even produced before the committee a sheaf of telegrams, together with a petition bearing 12,000 names. It will be intereseting to the house to know that these names obtained through the services of paid canvassers-ten cents a name. Oh yes; they did a good job. They even went to the schools and got the pupils from six to ten to sign the petition. No wonder they secured the number of names they did. That charge I made in the committee and it was not denied; nor can it be denied. I had a gentleman in the committee who gave evidence to the effect that his own boy had signed it. The school children ran home to their parents telling them, "We are going to have a new bridge; we have all signed the petition." Now, we in this house appreciate 56103-93i
the value of a petition: we also appreciate the value of telegrams sent in batches. The statement was made in the committee that, 4.000 persons from my constituency had signed the petition. I can say truthfully that not one person ever took the trouble to write to me even a note nor to send me a telegram, nor did anyone ever speak to me about the matter. They believed that I knew better than any of them did, what was needed there.
I am close to the Niagara bridge; my county takes in one of these bridges I have been discussing; and the next county is that of Welland. The parks commission, I may explain, comprises seven members, one from Lincoln, which is my county, three from Welland, one from Brant and two from Toronto, one of the commissioners from Toronto being the Minister of Highways in the provincial government. He is the seventh member. For the county in which Niagara Falls is situated, two of the members of the commission come from that city, and one comes from the same county, the same city, as the promoter of the bill, the member for the county of Welland. The commission, therefore, is unanimous; it was unanimous last year. They have presented a resolution which I want to put on record.


William Daum Euler: Is this bridge above or below the one which is closest to the falls?


James Dew Chaplin: This bridge, according to the plan submitted, is several hundred feet north of the bridge which is closest to the falls, the steel arch bridge.


William Daum Euler: Further down the river.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes. Now I will not say that this bridge may not be necessary in time, but w'hat we claim is that it is not necessary now, and from what we can see it will not be necessary for a number of years. But when it does become necessary to build a bridge, surely the parties to determine where it should be located are either the parks commission or the province of Ontario. I make that statement for this reason: the bridge should co-ordinate with the main highways, which are under the control of the province of Ontario. That is only reasonable. At present the government of Ontario are opposed to it because they feel the bridge is not needed.


Mr. CANNON:: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? Would he state to the house what authority he has for saying that the government of Ontario are opposed to the bill?

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Speaker, I read to
the committee a letter from the Prime Minister, and I believe that should be conclusive evidence that the government are opposed to it.


Lucien Cannon: opposed to it.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. CANNON:
He did not say he was
Most decidedly he did. Oh, no.


James Dew Chaplin: I can also produce correspondence from the Minister of Highways in which he says he is strenuously opposed to it, and in which he asks me to oppose the bill.


Lucien Cannon: Where is it?


James Dew Chaplin: Unfortunately I did not
bring either of these letters with me, but before I sit down I will have them, even if I have to detain the house a little longer.
My contention is that the position of this bridge should be determined by the province of Ontario, and while the Solicitor General has been good enough, to make some changes in the bill, in my opinion it does not give the province nearly enough authority in the matter. The Solicitor General does not seem to realize that we are just as much interested in the bridge as anyone, and I doubt very much whether any other government on this continent would dare pass legislation of this kind.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask my hon. friend if there is an objection to the location as well as to the bridge itself?


James Dew Chaplin: Absolutely.


William Daum Euler: Does the park extend down that far? Does it extend below the bridge which is already there?


James Dew Chaplin: I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that the park referred to by the hon. gentleman is 150 acres in extent. The park commission own 2,000 acres along the river; they own the whole bank of the river from one end to the other; they control for the province every foot of land from the source of the river to its mouth, and that is why we resent being told by this parliament where we shall have a bridge placed, when it shall be placed and that it shall be constructed by a private enterprise, which will collect money from the people of this country without paying a rental or anything of that kind. It is true that the companies owming the old bridges pay no rentals, but if the government were doing it all over again a thing of that kind would never be permitted; the government would collect money
TMr. Cannon.]
from them, as they should have had a right to do, for the granting of such a privilege. Why should you give anyone the right to build a bridge for which traffic has already been created, in order to permit people to make a big profit out of that sort of proposition? From everything along the river the park commission are collecting a revenue for the province of Ontario, and we are giving service at half the former cost. Last year, after carrying on all the work we had to do, we paid to the province $200,000, and in the last three years we have paid in $1,000,000.
Now I say to the government that after these circumstances were brought to their notice they had no business to grant a charter to a private company for this bridge. It is true that the charter contains a clause under which in time this bridge will come back to the province or to the Dominion. That is one of the things I tried to get the Solicitor General to tighten up in order to make it mean something, because as it is now all its teeth have been taken out. It might mean that when the Dominion took it over we would have to pay $400 a share or more for their stock. I suggested to the Solicitor General that a change be made to make sure that the bridge would be taken over at a reasonable price, as any stock would be retired, at say $100 or $105 or $110 per share, but in that regard he has not followed my advice.
As I have already said, the province has spent $7,000,000 on that frontier for the benefit of the people of the entire world, and we believe there are enough bridges in existence to take care of the present requirements. We object to another bridge being placed there first of all because it is not needed, and we brought evidence to that effect before the committee. Just at this point I wish to place on record a resolution which was passed by the park commission on February 28, of this year, to show their attitude in this connection:
Whereas the legislature of the province of Ontario by an act dated March 30, 1885, appointed commissioners for the purpose of selecting such lands in the vicinity of the falls of Niagara within Ontario as -were in their opinion proper to be set apart for the purpose of restoring scenic features to their natural condition and for the purpose of preserving the same from further deterioration.
And whereas the commissioners reported on September 18, and December 7, 1885, recommending that an area of about 154 acres of land be acquired by the province of Ontario along the Niagara river in the vicinity of the horseshoe or Canadian falls of Niagara for a public park with its management under provincial control.
And whereas the legislature passed an act on April 23, 1887, providing the means to establish, maintain, improve and develop the lands selected as and for a public park.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
And whereas the park lands so selected, have, during forty years of effort and at an expenditure by the commissioners of over $7,000,000 to improve and beautify the same, been extended to include property bordering on the Niagara river from lake Erie to lake Ontario, all of which are declared by the park act to be public works of Ontario.
And whereas certain applications to the parliament of Canada are pending for acts to incorporate companies with power to construct, maintain, and operate bridges across the Niagara river within a distance of 800 feet from the upper steel arch bridge.
And whereas the upper steel arch bridge has been and is being greatly improved and extended as to its terminal facilities increasing its capacity on the American side four times and on the Canadian side 100 per cent.
And whereas the lower steel arch bridge has greatly extended its terminal facilities.
And whereas the increased means of access and exit appear to be ample not only for present requirements but for some distance into the future.
Now therefore be it resolved:
1.	That the Niagara Parks Commission is opposed to the construction of a new bridge in the vicinity of the upper steel arch bridge, because,
(1) it will mar the scenic beauty of the falls and park, and (2) it is not necessary to accommodate public travel.
2.	That the location of a new bridge, when required, should be midway between the two present traffic bridges below the falls, where it would not have so injurious an effect upon the scenic beauty of the falls and park, and also, m order that the traffic from the bridge terminals, may not, by their proximity create congestion.


Mr. PETTIT:: TV hen was that resolution
passed?


James Dew Chaplin: It was passed on
February 28 of this year.


George Hamilton Pettit: How many members were
present at that meeting?


James Dew Chaplin: There was a quorum of
the board; four of the seven members were present.


George Hamilton Pettit: Was the member of the
commission for Welland city present?


James Dew Chaplin: He was in Bermuda, .but
he left a 'letter to the effect that he was opposed to the bridge. Now I want to refer to a letter written by the Prime Minister of Ontario. I have here a letter written by him to the secretary of our commission under date of January 16, 192S. I might say that at this time we were fighting the bridge company for a reduction of tolls, and that will explain why the Prime Minister of the province made a reference to the matter.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask my hon. friend why, if the governor in council have authority to regulate the tolls, the matter was not referred to them.


James Dew Chaplin: First of all it was not the park commissioners' business; we had nothing to do with the bridge.


Charles A. Stewart: But I am
speaking of the existing provision.


James Dew Chaplin: My answer to the hon.
gentleman is that we were out of our province in considering the matter at all. At that time I did not know that these clauses were in the charter, or that we had no control over these bridges. I only found that out when we got down here. When we got that information we took the means at hand of correcting the situation. Here is the Prime Minister's letter to Mr. Jackson, the engineer and general manager of the park.
I have before me yours of the 14th.
I am just as strongly opposed to the building of the additional bridge across the Niagara, as proposed, as I was last year, and for the same reasons.
The minister says the premier did not say so.
I think that the commission should use all its efforts to defeat any such project.
There is only one reason that would induce me to alter this view, that is, the necessity for relieving the public from being held up in the matter of fares by those who already hold franchises.
At the time the Prime Minister wrote that letter, the matter was in confusion. We had not succeeded in getting those tolls put back, but by the time we got here we had that matter rectified, without any reference here. It was only, as I explained before, when I came down here and had a chance to view the charters, that I found the clauses in question. The Solicitor General was good enough to tell me of them, because he had the charters in front of him. He told us how well he would look after these bridge companies in t-he future. Well, his predecessors had had the charters in their possession for twenty years, or more, and had not done so. I had confidence that we were better able to look after those matters than were such a dead bunch.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is taking a great deal of credit to himself. He knew the proper court to come to for redress and yet he did not come.


James Dew Chaplin: When the minister makes that statement he ought to remember that we had nothing to do with these bridges.


Charles A. Stewart: I think you had to do with them.


James Dew Chaplin: We had nothing to do with them at all. If we had it is obvious we should have taken action long ago.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge


Charles A. Stewart: You might easily have found out where to get redress.


James Dew Chaplin: The people who were making complaint so strongly were the ones who should have come here to get redress. The people of Niagara Falk were the people that might reasonably be looked to to obtain redress. We butted in when it became our business to do so, when a new charter was being sought.
Now I will read a letter from the provincial Minister of Highways, which reads as follows: Toronto, March 3, 1928.
Dear Mr. Chaplin:
I am sorry to learn by the press and from your letter of the 29th ult., that you are not successful in stopping the progress of the bill dealing with the charter of the Memorial Bridge Company, Niagara Falls.
I have discussed the matter with the Prime Minister and he has suggested that the government ask Mr. Henderson to state our position and to strengthen your position in every way you think advisable.
I do not know what stronger evidence the government want of the attitude of the provincial government. The Solicitor General said a while ago that the provincial government had not declared themselves very positively. I do not know that you could get any stronger or more positive declaration than that.


Lucien Cannon: What is the date of the letter?


James Dew Chaplin: It is dated March 3, 1928.


Lucien Cannon: Mr. Henderson appeared before the committee.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Henderson appeared before the committee and made representations from the province strenuously opposing the bridge.


Lucien Cannon: He did not.


James Dew Chaplin: Well if the Solicitor
General-


Lucien Cannon: I will withdraw that remark. I will deal with it when I speak.


James Dew Chaplin: The statement of the
Solicitor General in regard to that is just ibout as correct as his statement about the ittitude of the Prime Minister of Ontario and ;he Minister of Highways whose letters I have [DOT]ead.
I now wish to place on record a communi-lation from the State Reservation Commission, a body on the other side of the river. This commission was appointed many years ago in order to do the same work in the state of New York that we were doing

in Ontario. Here is a letter dated March 12, 1928, from the president of the State Reservation Commission at Niagara.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the state of New York.


James Dew Chaplin: The state of New York. The letter is as follows:
Supplementing my letter to you of the 27th of March-
That is when this bill was up last year- 1927-
-of which I enclose a copy, I beg to say that the attitude of the State Reservation Commission at Niagara as expressed in that letter, is unchanged; that all of the considerations in it outlined militating against the construction of a new bridge apply with even greater force than then expressed.
Permit me to summarize for your consideration the underlying reasons moving our commission to oppose similar legislation when presented to the New York state legislature at Albany:
1st. The construction of a new structure such as proposed inevitably would be disastrous to the scenic grandeur of the great cataract, and the impressive gorge below. In this conviction we strongly are sustained by the well considered and strongly expressed opinion of the Hon. Frederick Law Olmstead, admittedly one of the most distinguished landscape artists now living, who was consulted by us upon this subject.
2nd. Such a structure seriously would interfere with the plans now under consideration by us for the expenditure of large sums of money, especially devoted by the people of our state to the further enhancement of the scenic grandeur and beauty of the cataract.
3rd. An important factor of our expenditure will he the elimination of conditions tending to impair and seriously to detract from the majesty of the cataract.
4th. There is not any need for an additional bridge. Whatever delays and congestion in traffic have arisen, has been infrequent, sporadic and entirely due to the rigorous inspection by the officials of the customs and immigration departments of both the Canadian government and our own.
As you are aware, there has been provided at the respective bridge heads additional lanes of traffic, which now are available for such inspection, more indeed, than those departments reasonably can be expected to utilize for many years in the future.
You are entirely at liberty to use this letter in any manner you see fit. Particularly shall I be pleased if you will present it to the Canadian parliament, or to any of its committees which may have this matter under consideration.
This is from the commission on the other side of the river.


George Hamilton Pettit: May I point out that the New York side of the bridge does not touch the New York state reservation and will not touch any part of it. It is private property that will be affected, and not the New York state reservation.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge


James Dew Chaplin: The last bridge that the hon. member for Welland supported in this house had its head on the other side of the river on a piece of property belonging to the state reservation.


George Hamilton Pettit: The hon. gentleman is mistaken.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member cannot be interrupted.


James Dew Chaplin: I find that my time is
nearly up. I speak as one of the park commissioners for a period of more than fifteen years, during which time the commissioners have always applied themselves closely to the work of conserving the beauties of the great natural wonder of America. This work has been carried on for forty years by commissioners without any remuneration whatever, simply to preserve the scenic beauties of the Niagara river for the people of this country and for visitors who may come, and we, knowing the conditions there better than any other person or any other body of persons, declare that, in our judgment, this parliament has no moral' right to give any charter against the opinion of the park commissioners and against the wishes and opinions of the premier of Ontario.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.


Mr. HEAPS:: I understand that last year
a request was made for this bridge by the same company and that the bill was killed by the committee. I should like to know why this year the committee are reporting favourably on this bridge.


George Hamilton Pettit: Last year the location asked for this bridge was in between the upper steel arch bridge and the falls and it interfered with the scenic beauty at that time. I opposed the location of that bridge at that point last year. The bridge, the incorporation of which is now sought, is from eight hundred to one thousand feet further away from the falls than the present cantilever bridge.


James Dew Chaplin: The facts of the case are these.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Dew Chaplin: The records wild bear me out. Last year a number of gentlemen came from Niagara Falls and proposed the construction of a 'bridge across the Niagara river in front of the present bridge and coming out right at the gates of our park. That bill was thrown out of the committee, but they were
very persistent and they came back the same year with another one. This is a sort of movable bridge on wheels. If it is beaten in one place they can move it along a little further. The second proposition that came before the house and was again defeated was to place a bridge within two hundred feet of the upper steel arch bridge. This was a most foolish proposition and the hon. gentleman does not say that he did not support it. It was about as foolish as this one, but he supported it just the same. The present proposal is for a bridge from three to eight hundred feet away and our contention is this. Assuming a bridge is required, we say this is not the place to put it. Our engineers say that if a bridge is nedded. there is a good location halfway between the two bridges where there is a street that, without any great expense, can be connected with a highway. But what they want is to get as close as possible to the other bridge so as to ensure that it will pay as well as the other one.


Charles A. Stewart: What is the location the hon. member suggests?


James Dew Chaplin: Between the two bridges
there is a space of about two miles, and we suggest that if ever the time comes to construct another bridge, the logical place for it to go is halfway between those two bridges.


Mr. STEVENS:: A very large number of
amendments have been made to this bill and we do not have them before us. I happen, through the courtesy of the clerk, to have had an opportunity of looking at the amended bill, but certainly hon. members cannot follow the bill in its present form.


Lucien Cannon: It has been reprinted.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no reprint of it.
I have in hand a table copy.


Lucien Cannon: The bill must have been
distributed because I hold in my hand a copy reprinted as amended and reported by the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What I am. asking is that we should have a reprint of this bill. The Solicitor General says there is a reprint.


Lucien Cannon: It is on the members'
files. The hon. member for Lincoln, in the course of his remarks, was kind enough to mention the name of the Solicitor General once or twice in connection with certain amendments made to this bill, so I intend briefly to explain the amendments which were brought into the committee and the reason why I supported them. I may preface my remarks by saying that this is not in any way

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
a government bill. It is a private bill introduced by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit), and so far the division of opinion which we have seen in the committee seems to be more of a family than of a partisan nature. But in view of the great importance of this legislation, as a member of the government entrusted with the supervision, may I say, of legislation in order to see that the rights of different parties and even of different governments are safeguarded, I gave very carefully consideration to the matter and I will now offer a few words of explanation to the committee regarding the bill itself.
The hon. member for Lincoln has stated that this bill is sponsored and supported by the government as such in direct opposition to the views held by the government of Ontario in connection with the matter. Let us understand the real situation, in order that the impression may not be spread abroad that such a conflict between the two governments does exist in connection with this bill.
The province of Ontario was represented before the committee when the bill was under consideration, not by my hon. friend from Lincoln, but by Mr. Henderson, K.C., of the city of Ottawa, who held a brief for the Attorney General of Ontario, and so stated before the committee. Mr. Henderson said that he wanted the legislation to be drafted in such a fashion that what he considered the rights of the province of Ontario would be safeguarded. I submitted to Mr. Henderson an amendment to clause 19, an amendment which was afterwards adopted and inserted in t'he bill, with the understanding that Mr. Henderson was to consider it, and should he have any further representations to make on behalf of his client the Attorney General for Ontario, I would be glad to consider those representations with a view to further amending the bill, if necessary, when it came before the committee of the whole house. Two weeks have elapsed since then. The representative of the Attorney General of Ontario has had that amendment in his hands ever since, and he has made no representations as to any further amendment. And why? Because, contrary to what the hon. member for Lincoln has asserted before this committee, the property neighbouring the Niagara river where the bridge if built is to lie, is to be dealt with in such a fashion that the rights of the province of Ontario will be safeguarded.
My hon. friend from Lincoln has said that we were doing away with all the rights of the parks commission of which he is a member. With all deference to my hon.
(Mr. Cannon.]
friend, and with all due respect to the splendid work which he has done as a member of that commission in the embellishment of that part of the Niagara district, I must say that his statement to the house exceeds a true picture of the facts.
The bill simply says this: The company may not build that bridge, may not locate the site of the bridge, and may not commence the work in order to complete the bridge, without first getting into touch with the commission of which my hon. friend is a member and agreeing as to t'he conditions on which the work is to be undertaken. This is the bill as we passed it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: ' Oh no.


Lucien Cannon: Oh yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read the section, please.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, I will read the section. I know whereof I speak because I prepared the amendment myself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just read it, please.


Lucien Cannon: I will read section 19,
and I would ask the hon. leader of the opposition to follow me as I read, because I am quite sure that when I am through reading it he will not contradict me further. Clause 19 of the bill as amended and reprinted- not the original bill-provides:
The company shall not locate, construct or operate-
Shall not locate; my first contention is right. Shall not construct; my second contention is right. Shall not operate; my third contention is right.
The company shall not locate, construct or operate any of the works mentioned in section 7 of this act upon or over the boulevard of the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park Commission, without first obtaining the consent in writing of the commissioners of the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Go on.


Lucien Cannon: This is the amendment, if my hon. friend will allow me-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to see a man make an argument like that in a court of law.


Lucien Cannon: Well, when I argue in a court of law I am generally listened to with more patience than my hon. friend shows. As I pointed out to the committee, if we leave in the hands of the parks commission the arbitrary power of suspending or obstructing the work altogether, without reason, in view of the attitude taken by the hon. member for Lincoln, who is a member of that commission,

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
it would simply mean that on the one hand, we would give to this company the power to construct a bridge, and on the other hand, we would leave to the decision of the hon. member for Lincoln and his commission the power to stop that work altogether.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would the hon. gentleman tell me what is wrong with that?


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
follow me, first of all the company will have to get into touch with the parks commission and try and agree as to the conditions. Should the parks commission and the company fail to agree, then the amendment provides that without prejudice to the rights of the company or of the commission, both parties will have to come before a third party, which will decide whether the bridge shall be constructed, and should the bridge be constructed, the terms upon which its construction shall take place. That is provided in the last part of the clause which reads:
-and failing such consent, within sixty days from the date of the request made in writing by the company for such consent to the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park Commissioners, then upon such terms as are fixed by the board of railway commissioners for Canada.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Supposing the railway commissioners give a judgment adverse to the parks commissioners; would their judgment be binding?


Lucien Cannon: Surely.
M'r. HEAPS:	The railway commission
would be the final arbiter, and not the parks commission at all?


Lucien Cannon: The amendment covers
two alternatives: First, if the parks commission and the company agree, there the matter rests, and my hon. friend from Lincoln and his fellow commissioners can lay down the conditions as to construction. But failing such an agreement between the parks commission and the oompany, as this parliament always legislates for a practical object, and we have to foresee a possible deadlock, foreseeing that possible deadlock, we had to provide a remedy for it, and as a remedy we have chosen a perfectly impartial third body, the railway commission, which will decide the matter at issue, and either uphold the contention of the parks commissioners, or else prescribe1 the new conditions upon which the construction of the bridge shall take place.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The railway commission
will decide the conditions upon which the bridge is to be built; but they cannot decide that it shall not be built at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the whole story.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, the clauses of the bill deal with the different aspects of the undertaking, but always subject to the basic principle that parliament having adopted the preamble, considers that a second bridge should be built.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Is the ultimate
decision of the railway board entirely to govern the location?


Lucien Cannon: Yes. Section 19 provides that the company Shall not locate, construct or operate except under certain conditions. This is in answer to my friend's first point, that the wishes of the province of Ontario were disregarded, and, secondly, that provincial rights were not safeguarded. Let me say that Mr. Henderson represented the government of Ontario before the private bills committee and made certain representations, and since the bill has been amended he has made no further representations, from which I think it may be inferred that he is satisfied with the bill in its present form. As to the rights of the province of Ontario, as represented by the park commissioners, not being protected, I submit with all deference that section 19 gives absolute right to the park commissioners, before any work is started, to discuss with the company certain conditions, and if the company is unreasonable, then the railway board will consider the whole situation; and I have enough confidence in the railway board to believe that justice will be done.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not think anyone
will dispute the Solicitor General's statement that the railway board will endeavour to do justice. But once this bill is passed the company have a statutory right to go ahead and construct the bridge, and when it fixes on a certain point where the bridge should tie up with the land, is not the railway board bound to give a decision that will permit the construction of the undertaking? The railway board is not in a position to say: no, this is not in the interests of the community, and you shall not construct the proposed bridge. It must give a decision permitting the undertaking to proceed.


Lucien Cannon: Not necessarily; otherwise section 19 would be senseless.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It may be senseless.


Lucien Cannon: I say it would be senseless, because the power of the railway board would be restricted to such an extent that it would simply be illusory. But it is not so restricted. Section 19, if I understand it

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
rightly, provides, in effect, that the company having power to locate, construct and maintain, will not exercise that power without previously obtaining the consent of the park commisisoners, upon conditions to be arranged, and failing such consent, the matter may be referred to the railway board. But the railway board will then have exactly the same power and authority to lay down conditions as to location preliminary to the beginning of the work.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: But the railway board
will not have power to say that the bridge shall not be built.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly they will not
have power to say the bridge shall not be built; but they will have power to say: first, your bridge shall be built on a certain site; second, you shall construct your bridge under certain conditions; third, you shall maintain your undertaking under certain conditions. Then unless the conditions laid down by the railway board are observed the work will not be undertaken.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The railway commission
will not have authority to say to the company after this bill passes: you shall not build that bridge at all.


Lucien Cannon: We are only playing with
words.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: No.


Lucien Cannon: The railway board will
have authority to say: You may build that bridge provided you do so and so; or, putting it another way: you shall not build that bridge unless you do so and so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the Solicitor General permit me one further question? Clause 7 is the empowering clause, and it says clearly that the bridge shall ,be constructed:
At or near a point between the property of the Canadian National Railways on River road and the north limit of Bender street in the city of Niagara Falls in the county of Welland in the province of Ontario, to a point in the city of Niagara Falls in the state of New York.
Now then, if the bridge is located at any point within that area, the railway board cannot impose conditions that will prevent the company from constructing the work. The Solicitor General will admit that?


Lucien Cannon: I will admit that the
location of the bridge will have to be within the four corners of section 7.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And that the railway
commission cannot withhold their consent if the bridge is between those points?


Lucien Cannon: I would not say that. I
suppose the hon. gentlemen who represent these localities could furnish the committee better information on these points than I possess, but if I understood rightly the discussion before the committee there is quite a lot of space where a bridge could be built.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But the location is
specified in the bill.


Lucien Cannon: Section 7 says between
such point and another point. Let me give the exact words:
7. The company may construct, maintain and operate a bridge across the Niagara river for the passage of pedestrians, vehicles, cariages, electric cars or street cars and for any other like purpose, with all necessary approaches, from a point at or near a point between the property of the Canadian National Railways on River road and the north limit of Bender street in the city of Niagara Falls in the county of Welland in the province of Ontario,-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is one point.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. members who
represent these constituencies are in a much better position than I can possibly be to give information to the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the Solicitor General please complete the quotation? He has given only half of the section.


Lucien Cannon: Yes.
-to a point in the city of Niagara Falls in the state of New York, one of the United States of America,-
That is, as far as the bridge is concerned, we have to consider the Canadian side; in other words, we can legislate only in so far as Canada is concerned. As to the American side, it will be for the proper authorities there to deal with the matter. On the Canadian side, we say: we empower you to build the bridge from that point to this other point, but as to the exact location of the bridge, this must be agreed upon between yourselves and the park commissioners before the work is started, and failing such agreement, the location will be decided by the railway board. That is the effect of section 19 as I understand it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Who is asking for the bridge?


Lucien Cannon: I will come to that. I
pass now to my second point. The hon. member (Mr. Chaplin), with great ability and also with the experience he has derived from many years of service on the commission, has told the committee that this is an attempt on the part of certain private interests to get from

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
parliament the power to build a bridge over the Niagara river and to exact tolls from the public. That is certainly the impression which the hon. member conveyed or at least attempted to convey by his remarks. What is the true situation? The bridge which now exists is not publicly owned; it does not belong to the province of Ontario; it is not controlled by my hon. friend's commission. It is a bridge owned by a private company, whose representatives when they appeared before the committee refused to address them. When I asked the question as to what was the financial standing of the company for the last twelve months and what their revenues had been no answer was given. Then I was informed that there was no authorized representative of the company who could give the information, and we never heard another word about the matter. It is not correct to state-


Mr. CAMPBELL:: May I ask my friend
a question?


Lucien Cannon: When I am through with this point. It is not correct for the hon. member for Lincoln to say that this is a privately owned company trying to secure a monopoly-


James Dew Chaplin: I did not say "monopoly"; I never used the word monopoly at all.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend did not use that term I will correct myself. I say, it is not correct that too say that the company is trying to secure authority to build a bridge which would be a gold mine. Now, let us examine the facts.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Who is asking for the bridge?


Lucien Cannon: I am coming to that.


Milton Neil Campbell: If what the hon. gentleman says is true, that the bridge would be a gold mine, is not that a good reason for opposing the construction of more privately owned bridges?


Lucien Cannon: I thought my hon. friend
had a question to put; that is an argument, not a question. Now to reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Heaps). The sponsor of the bill would be in a much better position than I to answer his question. However, as a member of the committee, I may say that there appeared before us the mayor of Niagara Falls-


James Dew Chaplin: Who is also a promoter of the bill, one of the officers of the bridge company asking for the charter.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is a member of the parks commission and it is his right to state his views. The mayor of Niagara Falls came forward in regard to another bridge-


Richard Bedford Bennett: One is profit, the other
service.


Lucien Cannon: The mayor of Niagara
Falls appeared in his official capacity. Before I go any further, let me say that I am not criticizing my hon. friend from Lincoln for being a member of the commission, but I am very much surprised, in view of the high character of the gentleman who fills the office of mayor of Niagara Falls that the hon. member should try to discredit him by saying that he is interested in this bridge. Mr. Stephens appeared before the committee and I do not think that in anything he said he gave occasion for my hon. friend to insinuate that he was interested. He appeared on behalf of the municipality of Niagara Falls; other gentlemen appeared also. They represented, first, that a second bridge was necessary ; they pointed out that the necessity arose by reason of considerable congestion of traffic. In the second place, they contended that it was necessary on account of exorbitant tolls which had been charged by one existing bridge. And in the third place, in support of the contention that the construction of the new bridge was urgent, they submitted a petition signed by many thousands of people. I as a member of the committee felt convinced that the people who live in that locality were very anxious that second bridge should be built.


James Dew Chaplin: A second one? You mean a fourth.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend knows that only one bridge can be used now for ordinary traffic in automobiles and pedestrians, the arch bridge.


James Dew Chaplin: I know no such thing; that statement is not correct. I do not know whether the Solicitor General is aware of the situation or not. He knows nothing about it if he persists in that statement.


Lucien Cannon: I will leave the question to the committee; I do not think it would be much use arguing with my hon. friend considering the tone he has adopted. The committee had evidence before them that the people living in that locality, who after all are the people who should know the real conditions, supported the proposal. I wish now to call the attention of the committee to a third point. If hon. members will read care-
Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge

fully Bill No. 14 as reprinted and amended, they will see that we have surrounded the provisions of the bill with every possible precaution in order to safeguard what we consider to be the public interest. I would ask hon. gentlemen to glance at clauses 7, 8, 10, 14, 16, 17, 18 and 19. In all these clauses we have given authority to the governor in council to supervise and control the operations of the company, should that company be allowed to build a bridge.
Before concluding, let me say that as a member of the government I immediately realized, when I attended that committee, the serious danger which might lie in empowering a private company to build toll bridges, not only at Niagara Falls but at other points on the international frontier. I realized that it was my duty as a member of the government and as a member of the house to make it clear that these powers, if granted to a private company, were to be granted in such a way that the public interests of the citizens of this country should be properly protected. We insterted a clause in the bill, and although the hon. member for Lincoln has stated that the clause has no teeth, I would ask hon. gentlemen to examine it; it is clause 18. Under that clause, when the company constructing the bridge have redeemed their corporate obligations, the bridge then becomes the property of the Dominion government or of any other government or public body designated by the federal government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perfectly meaningless.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend says that
is perfectly meaningless.


James Dew Chaplin: Show us the teeth in
it.


Lucien Cannon: I will do so in just a
moment. If my hon. friend would credit me with some interest in the welfare of the citizens of this country he might realize that I would not take it upon myself to insert such a clause without being sure first that that clause had an object and secondly that the object was possible of attainment. My hon. friend from Lincoln rightly stated that in reading the original bill that clause would not be of any use because the financial obligations of the company might be so excessive that the day would never come when they would be properly discharged. Having this in view, and having also examined with care the United States legislation covering the same subject matter, I inserted amendments all through the bill under which the governor general in council has absolute control over the financial operations of the company. When that com-
pany undertakes to transact any financial business which might have any bearing on section 18, the previous consent of 'the governor general in council will have to be secured. Moreover, in order that we might not be met with the suggestion, should this government consider it in the public interest to take over this bridge, that we were infringing upon vested rights, I would refer hon. members to section 21, which I inserted and which provides that the right to alter, amend or repeal this act is expressly reserved.


Henry Herbert Stevens: To whom?


Lucien Cannon: To the authority which
has legislated; when a reservation of any legislative power is made, evidently that reservation is in favour of the authority which has enacted the legislation wherein the reservation is to be found. It is true that parliament is a supreme authority and has the right to repeal, amend or alter any legislation which it passes, but that authority is implied. As members of the committee we went further, and instead of simply having an implied authority under which we could act we made it an express authority by inserting that clause in the act.
In conclusion may I say that when this and another bill concerning a bridge at Sarnia were before the committee, I was impressed with the fact that none of the companies operating the other bridges at Niagara Falls have submitted their tolls to the governor in council, although it is stated in their charters that that must be done. Before the committee I made a statement which I now repeat, that that situation will have to be dealt with in order to protect the public, and the tariff of tolls must be submitted to the governor in council. In this bill which we are now considering I refer the committee to section 10, which reads as follows:
The company may charge tolls for the use of the said bridge, approaches and facilities, and may regulate the tolls to be charged: Provided that such tolls shall have been previously approved by the governor in council. . . .
I added the word "previously" to the words which were to be found in the former legislation, in order to make sure that the tariff would not be exigible until approved by the governor in council. Not only have we the right to examine the tolls before the company has a right to charge such tolls, but section 10 contains a further item which gives the governor in council power to revise these tolls from time to time, and the section further states that the tolls shall be equal to all persons using the bridge, approaches and facilities.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
To sum up, section 10 says first that the company will have to submit their tolls to the governor in council for approval before those tolls can be charged the public, and it also provides that if the governor in council sees that a revision would be useful, the governor in council will have the right to revise those tolls.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. My hon. friend has exhausted his forty minutes.


George Hamilton Pettit: I think the Solicitor 'General has covered the ground rather thoroughly, but for fear there may be some misapprehension as to the location of this bridge I would call attention to section 7 of the bill. Under that section this bridge will be located at a point from 800 to 1,000 feet north of the present upper steel arch bridge, away from the falls. There is a spread of 200 feet there, and of course you cannot put your finger right on the spot where the bridge will be constructed, but it will be within those limits.


James Dew Chaplin: While my friend is on
that subject, will he tell me how far the Canadian National property is from the upper steel arch bridge?


George Hamilton Pettit: I would imagine it is from
400 to 600 feet away.


James Dew Chaplin: You know very well it
is only 250 feet.


George Hamilton Pettit: I did not know that.


James Dew Chaplin: I know it, and you know
it now.


George Hamilton Pettit: I want to tell the committee that no one in this house respects provincial rights as strongly as I do, but this bill does not infringe upon provincial rights except in so far as the parks commission, which is a creature of the provincial government, may be concerned. The park commission are only concerned with this 66-feet strip of roadway that passes along the edge of the gorge where this bridge is to touch. Now the bridge simply crosses the gorge, goes up to and against the side of this road and opens on to it. That is all that happens, nothing more or nothing less. So that there is no interference in any way with provincial rights, or any rights in which the park commission are concerned.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Could you not get a
charter from the provincial government for this bridge?


George Hamilton Pettit: Absolutely no. This is a
matter beyond the jurisdiction of the province. The bridge will span the international boundary, and therefore will come within the jurisdiction of the Dominion.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Are there any objections to it from the province of Ontario?


George Hamilton Pettit: If my hon. friend had been here he would have heard an objection by the Premier of the province of Ontario. I am glad the hon. member asked me that question because it will be noticed that the Premier of Ontario in his letter says: " I am against the building of this bridge for the same reason that I was last year." Now the reason why he was against the building of the bridge last year, and the reason why I opposed it also last year, was because the location of the bridge at that time was between the present bridge and the falls.


James Dew Chaplin: In his letter he did not
say " reason". He said " reasons".


George Hamilton Pettit: I have mentioned one reason. The other reason was that it would mar the beauty of the scenery of the falls I agree that the former location would have had that effect because the bridge would have been between the present structure and the falls. But the contemplated bridge will be 800 or 1,000 feet farther away from the falls, and it will not mar the scenery one iota. The New York state end of the bridge will open out on private property which is an eyesore. But those dilapidated buildings will be expropriated and tom down and a nice entrance made. With this eyesore removed the scenery will be improved rather than marred. Certainly as far as the Canadian end of the bridge is concerned there will be no marring whatever of scenery. The bridge will simply come up to the road and will open out on to it. I have seen the plans of the proposed bridge and it will be a most artistic structure. The bridge will be very wide and will at least provide for six lines of automobiles, three going one way and three going in the other direction. The present situation is such that a new bridge is an absolute necessity. Notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. friend from Lincoln the congestion there is simply terrific. Not only on holidays, but throughout the tourist season of three months, that situation prevails, it being less on some days and on other days greater. The present upper bridge was built some 33 years ago when automobile traffic was unknown. Hon. gentlemen all realize the extent of that traffic to-day, and bearing in mind that this bridge cannot be constructed
Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge

or completed within two and a half years, they can form some idea of the enormous traffic which will have developed by the end of that period. Niagara Falls at that point is getting a black eye throughout the United States because of the present congestion of traffic. The automobile traffic is held up there for a period of anywhere from two to six, eight or even ten hours. People are ceasing to cross at that point and are crossing at other points. Personally I cannot understand the attitude of my hon. friend and the park commission in allowing that state of affairs to continue. I should have thought they would have welcomed the construction of another bridge, which would draw more people to that particular point, because it would mean thousands of dollars to the park commission in revenue from concessions, and the easier and the quicker the crossing, could be made, the greater number of tourists you would attract, with larger profit to the town, and millions of dollars to the province and the Dominion at large.
I have in my possession some 60' or 70 telegrams from leading business men, councils, boards of trade and other organizations. I produced these before the committee and if I were to read them now hon. gentlemen would realize in what strong language they are couched. The gist of these communications is that the congestion is great, it must be relieved at once, and the present monopoly broken. There are two bridges there.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister said there was only one.


George Hamilton Pettit: The upper bridge will be about 800 feet away, and another bridge a mile and a half or a mile and three quarters farther away again. There is another bridge seven miles away from that, and the.fourth bridge is twenty miles distant, opposite Buffalo and Fort Erie. The large upper bridge had certain rates in force, and a year ago last October raised those rates 100 per cent. They were maintained at that figure until just about four weeks ago, when they were somewhat reduced but not to the original figures. So that instead of encouraging we are trying to break the existing monopoly. These two bridges have been there for years, they yield good returns, and naturally the owners want to keep the traffic and the revenues derived therefrom. The situation is such that something must be done to relieve the existing congestion, and to fix reasonable rates for the travelling public.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Are the other two bridges in the hands of private companies?


George Hamilton Pettit: Yes. And as has been
pointed out by the Solicitor General, it was agreed by the promoters of the present bill that the proposed structure should become the joint property of both governments at the end of a certain period. In order that that period might not be up in. the air, a further amendment was inserted which provided that the period for the redemption of the bonds and the payment of the obligations in the very first instance should be fixed by the Governor in Council, and thereafter from time to time if extension was necessary.


James Dew Chaplin: I read here that it shall be prescribed by the by-laws of the company.


George Hamilton Pettit: The hon. member has not read far enough. If he will go farther on he will see that it reads:
Provided always that the period for the payment of the obligations of the companies and the retirement of their capital stock and any extension thereof and the provision of the companies' by-laws in respect thereof shall have been previously approved by the governor in council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That does not mean that the Governor in Council fixes it.


George Hamilton Pettit: What does it mean?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not mean anything.


George Hamilton Pettit: Certainly it does. Besides the telegrams that I have from various leading men, business men, farmers, councillors and so on, I have letters from both provincial members of that locality to the effect that the bridge is an absolute necessity and should be built.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is the provincial member
a supporter of the Ontario government?


George Hamilton Pettit: Yes. Mr. W. G. Willson,
member for Niagara Falls, and Mr. Vaughan, member for Welland, are both supporters of the provincial government. Boards of trade and councils of the surrounding district are in favour of this bridge.


James Dew Chaplin: I just want to clear up
two or three matters, one of them regarding a statement made by the Solicitor General that he did not wish to discuss the question any more with me; he said I was impossible, because I corrected him in some of his statements. He referred to the second bridge and I said that there are four bridges there. The difference between him and myself is that I know what I am talking about and he does not. There are four passenger bridges, and there are two bridges, just as the hon. member for Welland has stated, within a mile

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
and a half or a short two miles of each other. Let me point out to the minister that 6ome time ago it was not considered that a bridge company which had a charter from parliament was being badly treated when it had to come to us and arrange about going over our property. That company was not stopped because we felt that bridge was needed in the public interest. That is a bridge which we do not believe is in t'he public interest. When a man comes before parliament asking for a franchise, it makes a difference whether he comes as an individual or as the mayor of a city. That gentleman as mayor of Niagara Falls had no right to appear as a participant in a charter for a company of this kind any more than the gentleman from Toronto whose name appears on the bill. That other gentleman is already a commissioner for Ontario in another part of the province, and Mr. Wright appears on this bill as an advocate for a bridge charter. If we strip off all the camouflage, the purpose of this charter is to make money. Does anyone suppose this is entirely for the purpose of killing a monopoly? Not at all. These people are out to make money themselves. My reason for opposing the bill is that in years	past we	gave two or threecharters and now	it is	time to stop.	Wemade a mistake in giving the charters we did and I do	not	want	to see another	onegiven. Let us	not	keep	on following in	the
old footsteps. There is no need to give this charter; either the provincial government or this government should control the bridge and make whatever money there is to be made cut of it. The government has no right to throw out a fortune to any body of individuals. My reason for opposing this bridge is, first, that it is not needed and, second, that we do not need to give a charter to private individuals.
As to the distance, clause 7 tells us plainly where the bridge is to be. Last year, as I pointed out, they came asking for a charter for the first bridge which was to be in front of the present one up against the falls. That bill was killed. They came back to the committee for another one, two hundred feet to the north of the present bridge and the end of that bridge was to be against Canadian National property. That was so stated in the bill and by their articles of incorporation. They said that the Canadian National was going to use this bridge, but I applied to the Canadian National and they said: We have nothing to do with it at all; we do not want a bridge in front of our property. Therefore these people were forced
to move and they got some property which is only two hundred and fifty feet away. They say in clause 7:
The company may construct, maintain and operate a bridge across the Niagara river for the passage of pedestrians, vehicles, carriages, electric cars or street cars and for any other like purpose, with all necessary approaches, from a point at or near a point between the property of the Canadian National Railways on River road and the north limit of Bender street.
The north end of Bender street is eight hundred feet away; the near end is two hundred and fifty feet away, so that this bill gives them authority to construct a bridge somewhere between those two points, the nearest of which is two hundred and fifty feet from the other bridge. We are blandly told that it may be four hundred feet away, but I know how far it will be. Last year the committee killed a charter for a bridge that was to be two hundred feet away from the other, and now they say: Well, we will build this one fifty feet further away. The whole thing is ridiculous when you come to consider it. When a bridge is needed, it should be placed midway, three-quarters of a mile away from the falls, and not within a few hundred feet. With two bridgeheads coming within a few hundred feet on the roadway, they are simply going to clutter up traffic more than ever before.
The minister said a few minutes ago that I made some implied reference to Mr. Stephens of Niagara Falls. I had no idea of doing any such thing. I simply pointed out to the committee that when I was in the committee, gentlemen there asked me if I was interested in any of the bridges. They did not hesitate to ask me, but they did not ask if the mayor of Niagara Falls was the party who was asking for the charter. My answer to the members who asked me that question was that neither I, nor any member of my family, nor any relative, had any interest in the bridges. I have no interest to serve except one and that is, as a park commissioner, to serve the interest of the people whose interest we have been serving there for forty years. The minister helped me quite considerably and I must thank him for putting in that word "previously" to which he refers. I suggested it to him but I did not know the exact word to insert and he was kind enough to see that the committee improved that clause materially, because, as I said before, every bridge that was built there under charter from this government had exactly the same clause that this bill contains and yet not one toll in thirty-five years was approved by order in council. Of course I know the present

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
minister will look after the business better than any of his predecessors. He will need to do it a great deal better and I believe he will. I must publicly say that he has inserted several clauses, but this does not improve the bill at all from our point of view because we are opposed to it on principle.
In regard to clause 18, to which he referred, I said to the solicitor general:	This is a
bridge company dangling before the people's eyes the prospect of one of these days getting this bridge back again. I said:	If you
want to make that of some use, insert a provision stating that the stock of that company which is assumed to be worth 100 to-day will not' have to be bought back at a higher price than 110 and interest. What will happen is this-if I know anything about corporations, and while I am not a lawyer I know something about them-they will pay off their obligations, and when it comes to selling their stock back to the government, they will want three or four hundred dollars for it. Let us insert a provision-I submit to the minister that two or three words will do it-making it necessary for the company to sell that stock at 110, and I will be satisfied with the clause. But under the bill as it stands, this bridge company can go out into the market and with their capital stock borrow probably twelve or fourteen million dollars. The thing is absurd.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What will the bridge be
worth?


James Dew Chaplin: It will cost, according to
their own statement, about $4,000,000, but it looks as if they are going to build up such a capital that when they sell it back they will be able to make four or five to one on it. I object to this on principle, first of all, because it is not necessary, and secondly, if a charter is to be granted, it should be under the control of the parks commission, which should have the say as to the location of the bridge. I am not opposed to the bridge if it is needed. Why, we put a railroad bridge there in my time because it was in the public interest, but we had to say where it should be located.


Lucien Cannon: What interpretation does
my hon. friend give to the proviso in clause 18?


James Dew Chaplin: I do not profess to be a lawyer, but if the minister will provide in this clause that under no circumstances will more than 110 be paid for the stock I will be satisfied with that, and you will not need to demonstrate any further to me the value of this clause.
[Mr. Chaplin.|


Lucien Cannon: The proviso to which I
refer in clause 18 reads:
Provided always that the period for the payment of the obligations of the companies and the retirement of their capital stock and any extension thereof and the provision of the companies by-laws in respect thereof shall have been previously approved by the governor in council.


James Dew Chaplin: But there is not a word
there about the price of the stock.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly. The whole of
clause 18, under which the bridge will become the joint property of the Dominion government and either the federal or state government on the other side, is subject to the proviso that the payment of the obligations of the company and the retirement of their capital stock shall be subject to the previous approval of the governor in council.


Mr. IRVINE:: Why not make it subject
to the approval of parliament? Why the governor in council?


Lucien Cannon: Parliament cannot deal
with the matter-


William Irvine: It can deal with it now.


Lucien Cannon: There is no doubt that
that could be put in the bill, but does my hon. friend think it would be reasonable to come to parliament and ask it to deal with matters of this kind, which are, after all, matters of detail? One of the great difficulties of the imperial parliament, may I point out to my hon. friend, is that it has too many matters of detail to deal with.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We can deal with
' three hundred divorce cases in a year. Surely we can deal with.one bridge.


Lucien Cannon: As my hon. friend knows, my opinion as to divorce bills is very much like his own, and if our opinion prevailed we would have no divorce bills at all before parliament.	'
Mr. M'cGIBBON: What is the minister's objection to the suggestion of the hon. member for Lincoln?


Lucien Cannon: I wish to repeat, this is not a government bill, but I address the committee at some length in order to explain what the government has thought fit to do in connection with this bill in order properly to safeguard what we consider the interests of the public.


Peter McGibbon: Is not the government willing to do a little bit more?

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge


Lucien Cannon: I do not consider that it is necessary to add anything to clause 18. As it is now framed, it gives every protection that my hon. friend from Lincoln indicated he desires.


William Irvine: Is this clause worth anything more than advertising the company?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is eyewash.


William Irvine: I should like the minister to say in what way this property will ultimately be conveyed back to the government. There is absolutely no control by parliament over this capital stock, how it is to be paid for, or how much - shall 'be paid for it, and it might take five million years to pay up that stock.


Lucien Cannon: A perusal of the bill will show, I think, that this company has to submit to the governor in council practically everything that has any bearing on its financial transactions. Comparing the American legislation with our own, I gathered the idea of most of these amendments. As my hon. friend from Lincoln has pointed out, clause 18 would not be of any practical significance unless the operations of the company were somewhat controlled, and it was with this idea that I suggested the bill should be amended, and the committee has amended it. The financial operations of the company are made subject to the approval of the governor in council, which will see that, while the company may redeem its reasonable obligations, it shall not go into any excessive or exaggerated operations which would delay unduly the taking over of the bridge by the Dominion authorities.


William Irvine: I object to that for two
reasons. In the first place, the governor in council cannot act as an acoountant for this company for all time, and secondly, the governor in council might be very much mistaken as to what was in the public interest.


Lucien Cannon: The argument my hon.
friend makes now is an answer to the suggestion he made a moment ago. If the governor in council cannot do it, how can parliament do it. Parliament is certainly in no better position than the governor in council, surrounded as council is by all the officials who can give us the information that we seek.


William Irvine: We are in a better position because at least the question is now before us, but once we embalm this act and put it in the archives, the governor in council does not even know that it exists, to say nothing about carrying it into effect.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend has a wrong idea of how the governor in council understands his duties.


William Irvine: I do not expect my hon.
friend will always be in power. I am looking forward to better times.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This bill is an illustration of what may result from what has become an unfortunate habit or practice of parliament. One of the habits of parliament, not necessarily a rule, is to allow private bills to get their second reading without very much scrutiny. Very frequently they are put Through and sent to a committee on the plea, "Ch, well, the committee will give this bill consideration." But then when the bill comes back to this house we find ourselves confronted with a situation which implies, if it does not assert, that parliament is more or less committed to the principle of the bill, and all we are permitted to do is to consider its individual clauses.
In t'he first place, I should like to call attention to this fact, that the bill contains the well-known constitutional clause declaring the works and undertaking of the company to be for the general advantage of Canada. This means that the ' bill must receive the careful consideration of parliament as a whole, and that we should not be influenced by the wishes of a particular community, no matter how deserving or importunate that community may be. Now, the Solicitor General intimated that the bill is strongly supported by the mayor and certain other influential citizens of the town where the bridge is to be located, and this he advanced as a very strong argument why we should pass the bill with apparently very little scrutiny. I submit that we are clothed with a national responsibility, and that this imposes upon us the duty of scrutinizing the bill in detail independently of the wishes of those who may most benefit from it. We should, as a matter of fact, while listening courteously to their request, regard the bill from the standpoint of the general interests of Canada. That, I think, is a principle that we ought to apply in dealing with this measure.
The proposal presents many difficulties to me. I may say to my hon. friend who is sponsor for the bill that nothing would please me better than to get behind him and support his proposal; but when I realize that it involves the construction of a bridge across the international boundary, and, further, that in some measure it infringes on the rights of a public body such as the park commissioners, then I conceive it to be my duty to examine the bill very carefully. The first



Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
question that presents itself to me is this: is the bridge a necessity? Personally I am not in a position to express a view; I do not think there are many members of the house who are in a position to do so; but we have heard from an hon. member who is very closely identified with the handling of traffic into 'Canada from the other side of the international boundary, and he tells us that in the opinion of the parks commission and their technical experts, after a very careful check of traffic throughout the year, the proposed bridge is not necessary. I know the federal government frequently is importuned to put in facilities at border points, for instance, customs facilities, for expeditiously taking care of a peak load, such as may be expected on the 1st and 4th of July-


An hon. MEMBER:: And the 12th of July.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, and St. Patrick's
day, Labour day, and other holidays-days when there is a very heavy traffic, and thus impose on the public treasury the cost of maintaining a force throughout the year to handle abnormal traffic on those infrequent occasions. But very wisely we have decided that the government, while giving the best facilities possible for the handling of normal business, should not be expected to provide facilities to take care of peak loads. The same principle ought to apply in our consideration of this bill. We must ask ourselves: is this bridge necessary to look after the normal business expeditiously? The evidence would indicate that the bridge is not necessary to supplement the existing facilities at this point.
But assuming that we decide in the affirmative, the next point to be considered is: who should build the bridge? At once we come into conflict with certain views. Some hold that these facilities should always be owned by private individuals. I am inclined to the view that in the case of a highway, whether it be a highway through the country or a bridge across a stream, it should be owned and controlled by some public body. Up to two or three years ago we had a toll road from this city to Aylmer, and further back still, half a century or more ago, all our main highways were toll roads, but I am glad to say that Canada, in common with nearly every other country, has abolished this antiquated system and to-day all our highways are under public control. As for bridges, outside of the practice which seems to have obtained at Niagara Palls-and we recently granted a charter for the construction of a toll bridge from Windsor to Detroit-I think all our bridges are now owned and operated
fMr. Stevens.]
by some public body. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hold that if this bridge is to be built, it should be undertaken, if possible, by some public body.
This brings me to my next point: what public body, outside of the Dominion government would be most interested in the construction of this bridge? Naturally the government of the province of Ontario is the most affected and the most interested. It is quite obvious that the town of Niagara Falls is not going to build the bridge; it will not be a civic bridge. It is a work that might be undertaken very profitably and very properly by the provincial government. Its position in regard to the proposed charter is very clearly set forth in the letters read from the Premier of Ontario and his Minister of Highways. These two ministers of the crown say they are opposed to the bridge being constructed by a private company. Therefore it does appeal to me on that ground also that we should reject the bill.
Now let me turn very briefly to some other features of this proposal. For the last seventeen years that I have been a member of this house we have considered the question of town planning in relation to the city of Ottawa, and to preserve the natural beauty of this capital city we appointed a body known as the Ottawa Improvement Commission. Now, one of the transcendent beauty spots of the world is Niagara Falls. The government of Ontario some years ago appointed a commission whose duty primarily is to preserve the natural beauty of the Niagara Falls district. To my mind it is a tragedy that our commercial development of hydro-electric power is minimizing the flow over Niagara Falls. Those who have studied the subject tell us that in the near future the falls will cease to be one of the wonders of the world by reason of the lessened volume of water and the gradual erosion of the rock. Certainly we ought not to do anything to mar the beauty of the falls. My hon. friend, the promoter of the bill, argues that the proposed bridge will be built below one of the existing bridges and therefore will not mar the beauty of the locality. I am not at all sure that by multiplying one bridge by two you are lessening the interference with the view of the falls. The fact that the present bridge is there is no argument why another bridge should be put up. Certainly I cannot for the life of me see the soundness of the argument for congesting traffic at that point, putting one bridge, at the extreme, a thousand feet away from the other, and possibly only two or three hundred

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
feet. I contend, therefore, that there is little ground for the argument in favour of the bill from that angle.
Now let me refer to the bill as amended. The Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) has given us a very exhaustive examination of its terms, and I hope he will take it kindly if I criticize some of his observations; I am not at all reflecting upon him in so doing. But I do not agree with him, and I say with the utmost candour that in putting forward my own view, I do not venture it as a legal opinion. I am not a lawyer, and I therefore offer my views merely as a member of parliament, whatever weight they may carry. But let us take the main operative clause of the bill, section 7, which clothes the company with all its powers. The company are empowered to construct this bridge, and there is imposed upon them a certain duty, namely, that they shall not commence actual construction of the bridge until an act of congress of the United States or of any other competent authority there has been passed approving the bridging of the said river. This of course is a constitutional necessity, but it indicates that after all nothing can be done until such a bill is passed either in congress or in the state of New York. I would direct attention to a few lines of the section which merit very close scrutiny. Having set up this alleged handicap or restriction, the section goes on to provide:
The company may in the meantime acquire the lands, submit their plans to the governor in council, and do all other things authorized by this act.
In other words, irrespective of obtaining authority to land on the American side, the company is empowered to ignore that restriction altogether and to apply the powers of the Expropriation Act, as exercised by a railway, expropriating the lands of the commission or of anybody else, and asserting all the rights that they can possibly obtain under this act, so far as the Canadian side is concerned, thus placing themselves in the position of complete control of the situation. And this they can do without ever conforming to the previous restriction of this section, namely, the securing of authority from the United States to land on the other side. This, I contend, should certainly not be granted to any company. No company should have the right to exercise expropriation powers until it is in a position to carry out the work it undertakes to perform. I therefore strongly object on that ground. .
Let me ask the Solicitor General a question. If the company is to be required to obtain 56103-944
the consent of the state of New York, why should we not equally impose upon it the necessity of obtaining the consent of the province of Ontario? Why not? This parliament is not called upon to champion the cause of any company; that is not our business. It is our duty to pass legislation of this character because such legislation comes within the constitution. But in exercising this prerogative, parliament ought surely to safeguard the interests of a junior legislative body, if I may use that term in this case. And the junior legislative body here concerned is the legislature of the province of Ontario. Why should we not enact a clause of this character: "The company shall not commence actual construction of the said bridge, nor exercise any of the powers hereunder mentioned, until an act of the congress of the United States or other competent authority in the United States, or in the province of Ontario, has been passed." That would completely safeguard the rights of Ontario and of the commission to which reference has been made. I submit for the consideration of the house the principle that if we are to reserve the rights of the state of New York we should equally reserve the rights of the province of Ontario.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is it not necessary to
obtain the consent of the federal government of the United States?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not sufficiently versed in international law to answer that question. I am under the impression that this would be a question for congress rather than for the state of New York, although the state of New York may have jurisdiction in the matter. It is immaterial, however, which legislative body in the United States exercises jurisdiction. My point is that if we are going to impose on this company the obligation of securing the consent of a foreign power, we should certainly make it obligatory upon them to secure the consent of the province of Ontario, whose interests are directly affected. I understand that a similar proposal was before the state of New York last year and w'as rejected, and it is before the same state at the present time. That of course need not influence our action one way or the other. I hope I have not confused the point I am making, which is, that if we are going to make it necessary for the company to obtain the consent of the state of New York we should enact a similar provision to ensure the rights of the province of Ontario in this regard.
I turn now to another section to which some consideration has been given. The Solicitor

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
General in his remarks referred to section 18, for which he took a great deal of credit to himself. But this section, to use the language of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) is obviously "without teeth". It has no real meaning; it does not impose any obligation upon the company. In plain terms, as I read it, this is what it says: that when the company reaches that stage where it can, and when it does, retire its obligations-that is to say, retire its bonds, mortgage charges and so forth-and when it is in a position to pay off its capital stock, then the work must revert to the Dominion of Canada or to some body designated by the governor in council. But what company is going to dispossess itself of work of this character so long as it is paying it well enough to retire its obligations? It might retire its obligations and then "sit tight" and draw its dividends. But, says the Solicitor General, I have forestalled that; I have added this clause:
Provided always that the period for the payment of the obligations of the companies anil the retirement of their capital stock and any extension thereof and the provision of the companies' by-laws in respect thereof shall have been previously approved by the governor in council.
Let me point out again-and I submit this only as the opinion of a layman and not as that of a lawyer-that this 'Clause is innocuous, without any force or effect. In the first place, the company has not been compelled to pass such by-laws. If it does pass by-laws it submits them to the governor in council, and the governor in council may withhold consent and disapprove of the terms. But the governor in council cannot impose terms. He has nothing by which he can force the company to pass a ,by-law in conformity with the desires of the governor in council. lie can reject the terms; he can say they are not sufficiently brief or sufficiently long. It might be that a number of the shareholders would say, "No, we do not want to retire our capital; we want to retain it." A friendly government might answer, "Very well, we will extend the period; we will let you keep the capital for another ten years." Or they might approve a by-law which would permit the shareholders to retain their capital for another fifty years. The point I am making is just what the hon. member for Lincoln and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin pointed out; if you are going to put teeth in this clause you must fix some period or some price at which this capital stock must be retired, if not both. I am not saying we are prepared to do so, but do not come before parliament and say that you have put in this bill a clause which will recover this work to the Dominion of Canada, when it will

do nothing of the kind. After all, perhaps the people of Canada might approve of such a bill if they took in good faith the suggestion made by the Solicitor Generali, that this work would be recovered to the country in ten or fifteen years, but there is nothing in this clause making any such provision.
Then I pass on to the famous clause 19, dealing with the railway commission, for which the Solicitor General also claimed credit.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will
allow me, I do not claim any personal credit. I claim credit for the committee which considered this clause; some of the amendments were suggested by the hon. member for Lincoln himself. We all worked together to put the bill in the best possible shape.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then I will not repeat
the statement that the Solicitor General claims credit; as a matter of fact I rather congratulate him for not claiming credit, because it is a testimony to his ability. However, I would have liked him to be a little more positive in his repudiation.
Let us consider section 19, and the Solicitor General will permit me to say that he did make a very long and very powerful argument in connection with that section. He read half of it and then made his argument, after which he read the closing words and claimed that the interests of all concerned were properly safeguarded by the latter part of the clause. He will correct me if that statement is wrong. Section 19 states that the company shall not locate its works on the Canadian side without first approaching the Niagara Falls park commissioners and obtaining their consent. We have already heard the views of the commissioners, and failing to obtain their consent the company will proceed upon such terms as are fixed by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. I asked the Solicitor General a very plain question when he read that sentence, and it was this: Let us suppose we pass this bill with section 7 as it is at present, empowering this company to construct, maintain and operate the bridge, and furthermore empowering the company to proceed with the acquisition of land forthwith, without waiting for legislation to be passed by the state of New York or any other body. Assuming that we pass this legislation and the company present plans to the Board of Railway Commissioners after failing to obtain the consent of the park commissioners with regard to the location of the bridge. According to the bill the bridge must be located between the Canadian National Railway river road and the north limit of Bender street, which is a very limited

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
one. In case of such an application, can the Board of Railway Commissioners refuse to allow the company to go on with the work at that point? It is obvious that they cannot. My hon. friend knows very well that the railway commissioners will say, "We must assume that parliament knew what it was doing; it authorized this company to build a bridge between two certain points on the Canadian side and to expropriate land without waiting for the acquisition of land on the other side. It is not for us to prevent the company from going on with their work." The only thing the board would have to do would be to determine at what point between those two specific points this bridge should be located. I do not believe the Solicitor General will contradict what I have said.


Lucien Cannon: I may tell my hon. friend that he cannot consider clause 7 without reading it in conjunction with clause 8, and if the two are read together I do not think his argument has much weight.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Very well, we will consider section 8. A moment ago the Solicitor General said he was the legal adviser of the government under whom came the preparation of legislation coming before parliament.


Lucien Cannon: I did not say that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, you did, and I was rather surprised at the time, because I did not think you meant it. As the legal adviser of the government, will the Solicitor General say that my argument in regard to section 7 is faulty? I do not think he will.


Lucien Cannon: Does my hon. friend want an answer?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


Lucien Cannon: The only answer I can give him is that it is a faulty argument.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will admit that that is a very wise answer if you have supreme confidence in the infallibility of the legal opinions of the Solicitor General, but unfortunately I have not that confidence.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend asked my opinion and I gave it to him. I would ask my hon. friend not to pass the remark that I am talking as though I am infallible, or anything like that. I was asked for an opinion, which I gave, and I do not say my hon. friend has to consider my opinion to be right. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite so. I merely observed that I would have had a great deal more confidence in the opinion if I thought the Solicitor General were infallible, which I do not.	*


Lucien Cannon: I am not.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In addition, of course, the Solicitor General gave no reasons, merely stating that I was wrong. I submit that my argument is not faulty; there may be some technical fault in it, but as an argument of fact it is not faulty. I have watched the railway commission for a great many years; I have appeared before them as a private citizen and as an officer of a municipality, and I know how that court operates. It does not operate strictly as a court of law but rather as a court of equity, and1 they invariably declare that when parliament clothes a company with certain powers they have no right to prevent that company from operating under those powers or from exercising their rights. My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) intimates quite rightly that this section does not give the railway commission power to stop the construction of the bridge; they merely fix the terms upon which the company shall proceed. The point I am making is this: When we pass this bill we authorize the construction of that bridge. There is no question of that, and the so-called safeguarding of the public interest which the Solicitor General has indicated is limited as I have stated in regard to both section 18 and section 19.
Then, in regard to section 21, I certainly would like to have an independent legal opinion in that connection. I have been in parliament for seventeen years, and I cannot recall having seen a clause similar to this. It may be new; it may be that the Solicitor General is hewing out a new pathway for parliament to follow in the future, and it may be that he will become immortal because of that clause. I do submit, however, that I would like to have the opinion of a legal authority at least equal to and independent of my hon. friend. The clause reads as follows:
The right to alter, amend or repeal this act is hereby expressly reserved.
In the first place, it is a axiom of parliamentary procedure that parliament has the right, although it is not always exercised, to repeal practically any statute which it has passed, of course always reserving the supreme right of the individual to appeal for equity through the granting of a fiat by the government to bring the matter before the courts. That is axiomatic. Parliament has that right, lust what other power is given to parliament

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
by this clause I do not know. The only value of that clause-if it has any value, which I question-is this:	To notify any person investing in this company, to notify any prospective bond purchaser or shareholder, that his rights in the company may be ended at any moment without notice. That is the only value. The Solicitor General nodded his head in approval of that statement. I submit that parliament should not pass any such piece of legislation. If they cannot safeguard the interests of the public of Canada without imposing a condition of that kind then the measure should not be passed at all. If the public interests cannot be properly safeguarded within the ambit of this measure then such a clause should not be put in. Furthermore I say that if the clause is effective, which I do do not believe it is, no solicitor for a bond company would ever pass the bonds which would be issued under that act. He would not pass them for a bonding company, my legal friends around me would not pass them. There is no solicitor for a bonding company, or for the trustee of the bondholders, who would ever approve of the issue of bonds with that clause in the bill without anything on the face of the bond to indicate to every bond purchaser that their bonds may be cancelled, or the rights of the company may be cancelled without notice. I say that the bonds would be unsaleable, and the raising of capital under those conditions would be a fruitless task. I believe I know something of what would happen because I have been in the financial end of the business for a good many years, and I know perfectly well the public would not take up bonds of this character.


Lucien Cannon: Why should my hon.
friend object to the clause?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I object to the clause because it is a piece of nonsense to put it into the bill, if what I say is correoct.


Lucien Cannon: Thank you for your judgment.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I may appear to the Solicitor General to be not very respectful of his views, but I do not know what impelled him to put the clause in.


Lucien Cannon: I gave the reason a
moment ago.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have argued the question from my standpoint, and I am convinced that what I have said is correct. I repeat that argument briefly: I do not think the clause is operative in the manner in which it is proposed to be enacted. If it is opera-

tive then I say the bonds are unsaleable. That is the point I make. I say further to the committee that if we are going to pass this legislation then we ought to safeguard the public interests in some other way than the inclusion of a clause of that character. I say very candidly that if I approved o'f this bill I would fight tooth and nail for the removal of that clause, because I would conceive it was not in the interest of the project at all, making it an inoperative and innocuous thing.
The discussion has been pretty well distributed over the clauses of the bill. I presume we are on clause 1, but I thought I should give the committee my views on the bill and state my opposition to the incorporation of this company under clause 1 so as to bring myself within the rules of the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do I understand the preamble is carried?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The preamble carries last
in the house, but of course in the private bills committee it carries first. We are on clause 1, Whi'ch seeks to incorporate the company, and I am opposed to the incorporation of that company for the reasons I have outlined.


George Hamilton Pettit: If I may venture a remark or two, I would say that the gentlemen whose names are mentioned in this bill are men of high standing in the community of Niagara Falls and the character of every one of them is above reproach.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not question that
for a moment. I want hon. gentlemen to understand that -clearly.


George Hamilton Pettit: These gentlemen have
associated themselves together for the -purpose of carrying out this enterprise, and have come -before the house with this bill. As member for the constituency within which this -bridge is to be built I support it very strongly because of the intolerable condition of affairs that exists at Niagara Falls, owing to the congestion of traffic and the high rates now charged. The people of the community are bound to break that monopbly and to get some legislation from parliament that will relieve the existing state of affairs. In this effort they should receive the support of the province of Ontario, and of the federal government representing the country as a whole, because both are interested. I want to assure hon. members that I am as strong a supporter of public ownership as any other hon. gentleman here, but to those who suggest that either the province of Ontario or the Dominion should undertake this work, I

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
rejyly that neither the province nor the Dominion is going to undertake the building of bridges. Where would these two legislative bodies be if they undertook work of that character? Why, they would be at the beck amd call of every constituency in every part of the country. It is simply drawing a red herring across the trail to raise a point of that kind.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: I should like to know if there is any difference in principle between the government of this province or the government of Canada building the bridge and the governments of the United States and Canada undertaking to construct jointly the St. Lawrence waterways scheme?


George Hamilton Pettit: No, I do not see the
difference, and I am not opposing any such plan. But what are we going to do in the meantime while the respective governments are considering the matter?


William Irvine: Have you asked the government to build a bridge?


George Hamilton Pettit: No, we have not asked this government to build a bridge. We are asking for authority to build it. We maintain that its construction is necessary in the public interest, to end an intolerable situation. This company is not acting from philanthropic or charitable motives. It wants to build the bridge and make a reasonable amount on the investment within such a period of time as would enable the cost of construction to be paid off. Then it is willing that this work shall become the joint property of both governments. I tell hon. gentlemen that this bridge is a necessity. The present congestion is simply intolerable, and it occurs not only on holidays but throughout the tourist season. I have been there and have viewed the conditions for myself. The gentlemen who sent these telegrams that I have in my hand -members of municipal councils and boards of trade, including Niagara Falls, the township of Stamford, the township of Willoughby, the township of Bertie, the town of Bridge-burg, the town of Fort Erie, and others- surely are not misrepresenting matters to this parliament. They tell you in no uncertain terms and very strong language, in the resolutions and telegrams they have forwarded, that the congestion cannot be endured any longer. Relief must be provided and the *existing monopoly must be broken. That is not only in the interest of the particular locality affected, but in the interests of the Dominion at large.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I should ljke to ask the
Solicitor General a few questions on this matter. Some provision is made in this bill for the stock of the company passing into the hands of the government. How would the United States regard the ownership of the bridge passing into the hands of what it might term a foreign country, and how would that affect the relations existing between the two countries? Would not the United States or the state of New York expect that in the passage of any legislation in which they were interested their rights should be safeguarded?


Lucien Cannon: I may say first that no
international bridge has as yet become the property of the Dominion government, and that may be why we would like in the future to have such bridges come under the federal authority so far as Canadian interest in them is concerned. As to the hon. member's second question, I may say that the United States certainly cannot oppose that provision of our law because they have a similar provision in their legislation dealing with international bridges, and, thirdly, I do not see how this could affect our relations because the ownership of these bridges would be a co-ownership between the Canadian government or any Canadian authority which would be designated and the United States government or any other United States authority designated by that government. Instead of lessening friendly relations, I think it should increase them.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Supposing the United
States inserted in regard to this bridge exactly the same provisions which we are inserting in this bill, making it subject to orders in council they might pass, how would that affect us? Would that cause an impasse? Why should we be subject to their changes by order in council?


Lucien Cannon: In considering all this
legislation, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with international waters and can legislate only covering the Canadian section, leaving to the United States authorities the duty of legislating in respect to the United States section. The necessity of cooperation in the way of legislation is imposed upon us by the very location of the bridge.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the stock issued
under this bill not cover the whole bridge?


Lucien Cannon: No. We are incorporating the Canadian company; but in the act which incorporates the Canadian company there is a provision that the Canadian com-

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
pany may incorporate with a company which will receive its existence from a United States authority, and the two companies being amalgamated or combined, a third company will operate the bridge.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Dew Chaplin: Just before the committee rose I was about to reply to a question in respect to capitalization and profits on the bridge which in my judgment had been more or less imperfectly answered. It is quite true that as far as the Canadian end is concerned, all we can do is to incorporate a company for the purpose ,of handling one-half the bridge, and the same thing has to be done with respect to the other half in the United States. After that, there can be several ways of handling the matter. In one case it is handled by the two bridge companies meeting together on equal terms; in another case it is handled by a single corporation which gathers together the two bridge companies into a holding company.
As to the question of profits, so that there will be no misunderstanding, if there is one objection I have more than another it is that a bridge of this kind is a very profitable undertaking; there is no doubt about that. The new bridge that was put up at Buffalo has within seven months paid the whole year's expenses of the bridge-its sinking fund, the total interest on its investment, and salaries for the whole year-and shown a profit besides; and the five months left will give them an extra profit. So you can readily understand why a private corporation wants to get a bridge charter. It is for the laudable purpose of making money, and that is largely the ground upon which I am opposed to this bridge. We have made a mistake before, but what has been done cannot be remedied. There are two or three companies now operating and making large profits; I know whereof I speak. One of these companies paid 18 per cent on an enlarged capital, and in addition put aside more money than it paid out. Now I ask the committee if they think that the clause the minister has been discussing is ample in its provisions to protect the people of the country. If these bridge people come here with the idea of giving something away, let us see that what they intend to give reaches us; it is not going to reach us under the clause as it stands. This is the way it will work out under the bill as it is now before us: As the bridge is operated, gradually the mortgages and the bonds [Mr Cannon.]
will be retired. That immediately leaves more money for the stock, more money to be divided amongst the shareholders, who will be scattered all over the country, and they will be paid increasing rates of dividend; no doubt about that. As they get those increasing rates of dividend, because of the bonds and mortgages being retired and there being more money to go to the stock, the price of the stock will rise, and what I am asking the minister to do, if he means what he says, is to put a provision in the bill that at no time will more than 110 be paid for the stock. If he will do that, he will get away from any idea of profiteering on the bridge, and with that proviso I shall be satisfied wiith that particular clause. But I say frankly I am not satisfied with the bill. The bridge is useless, it is not needed, it is a money-making venture where we have enough bridges on that frontier already.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I wonder if those who are favouring this bill can tell me why this bridge is called a memorial bridge.


George Hamilton Pettit: It is called a memorial
bridge in commemoration of the one hundred years of peace that has existed between the two countries, and also because it was thought the word memorial would be suitable in the jubilee year of confederation. The name is appropriate; that is all.


William Irvine: Would you consider offering that name to the pons asinorum?


George Hamilton Pettit: If that suits you, all right.


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. We are supposed to be discussing clause 1. The last three speakers have been talking either of clause 19 or of the title. We have been all afternoon on the bill, and have not advanced it at all, and I submit that we never will advance it unless we take it up clause by clause. This policy of discussing in committee of the whole what should have been discussed on the second reading, and discussing the whole bill instead of taking it up clause by clause, has been tried again and again, and invariably in the end the chairman has had to put his foot down and restrict the speakers to the clause under discussion. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come to do that.


John Frederick Johnston: I think the point raised by my hon. friend is well taken.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think the point
is well taken at all, because the word "memorial" is used in clause 1 which we are now discussing.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
James Dew Chaplin: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that anything will be gained by hurrying. There are several opponents of this bill who wish to speak on the principle, and it is all very well to say that the principle should have been discussed on the second reading, but everybody knows that when a private bill comes up for second reading it is always said, "You have to get the bill before the committee." Well, this bill has been before the committee and has now come back to the house, and this is the only time we have had a chance to discuss it in this house. Do you still declare section 1 carried, Mr. Chairman?


John Frederick Johnston: Section 1 was declared
carried.


Peter McGibbon: I would draw your
attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the hon. member was on his feet when you called it carried?


John Frederick Johnston: I did not see the hon.
member. We have had a pretty general discussion this afternoon, and I think we should proceed with the bill clause by clause.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Powers. Construct bridge across Niagara river, etc.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this is
the important section of the bill, for it authorizes the construction of a bridge across the Niagara river. Parliament is exercising its powers to create a company for this purpose because it happens to be am international waterway that is to be spanned; otherwise the matter would be dealt with by the legislature of Ontario. The powers granted to construct the bridge are made subject to legislation to be passed by congress or by the legislature of New York state. It is therefore apparent that this is not an absolute but a conditional power that is being -conferred. I observe from the public press that the legislature of the state of New York has recently declined to incorporate this company. I made inquiries and one hon. member told me that this is correct. Therefore we are now placing upon the statute books an act to incorporate a company that is to function conditionally upon the legislature of the state of New York granting similar powers, which, as I say, it has -refused to grant.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask if the legislature
of New York state gave any reasons for refusing to incorporate the -company?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand it, they
voted the bill down because they considered it to "be not in the -public interest. My authority for that is what I sa-w in the public press, and I assume my hon. friend saw it as well. May I direct the attention of the committee to the wording of the section?
-but the company may, in the meantime, acquire the lands, submit their plans to the governor in council, and do all other things authorized by this act.
I ask the committee if it is proper for us to say: although the corporate powers -may not be exercised unless and until the legislature of a foreign -country passes concurrent legislation with respect to the other end of the bridge, we will empower this -com-pany to seek subscriptions from the public and then buy land and do other things. In other words, this -com-pany may never be able to build the bridge. To pass such legislation would be to -take a course that I have never seen this or any other parliament take.
Let me come to another point. F-or years the city of Calgary has been trying to induce the Minister of the Interior to grant -powers to a local company to operate a power plant at Spray lakes in Banff national park. We were told that this would interfere with the scenic beauties -of the national park, which contains several millions of acres of land. Recently regulations were imposed -preventing even a prospector from operating any mineral claim within that area-again i-n order to preserve the scenic beauties. The land that would -be affected is far removed from the average traveller who visits the park. Furthermore, an application was recently made by one of the railway companies to acquire a mountain top in the province of British Columbia as a site for -bungalow camps. I have a telegram this morning from some friends the -proposal vitally affects the district of Banff, and they are very anxious that these bu-ngaloiY camps should be permitted- advising me that the deputy -minister of the Department of the Interior has been urging the British Columbia authorities not to grant this concession.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
entirely wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to hear it,
because it seems to me that if my information is correct Mr. Cory was exceeding his authority. Shall this parliament, exercising its powers purely as trustees, it being the only authority that can create a company to build this bridge because it is to span an international waterway presumably for the benefit of the people of Canada, but which

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
company cannot come into being unless a foreign power passes concurrent legislation- shall this parliament create such a corporation to traverse public parks and interfere with the scenic beauty of an area that is visible to the whole surrounding community, notwithstanding the opposition of the government of the province of Ontario as well as of the parks commission? It was said this afternoon that the Attorney General of Ontario could not have been very much in earnest because he was given an opportunity to submit another amendment and failed to do so. His answer is obvious, as communicated to me-he could not have anything to do with any such amendment because thereby he would be accepting the principle of this measure to which, on behalf of the province, rightly or wrongly, he is opposed.
It notwithstanding the objection of the province of Ontario we are to create this bridge company, le^ us at least provide that these powers shall not be exercised in the province without the consent of the provincial government. Is that an unreasonable request to make? My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior has for four years refused to grant power rights in the Banff national park because the government of the province of Alberta will not consent. He says, and very properly, that the provincial government in that case must determine the matter, the federal authority exercising its powers simply as trustees. Now, this parliament is enjoying jurisdiction in this matter merely because as I have already said, it happens to be, an international waterway that is to be spanned. That being so, let us exercise our power in such a way at least as will be consistent with the duty that rests upon us with respect to the province in which the bridge is to be built. That duty is to see that since the people of the province do not desire the bridge we should not charter a company to construct it. In other words, the company can derive corporate existence only from this parliament, but the exercise of its corporate powers, conditional1 as they now are upon concurrent legislation by congress or other competent authority in the United States, should also be subject to the further condition, namely, the consent of the province of Ontario. Does my hon. friend say that this is a precedent to enable him to deal with public lands and parks and grant leave to some to prospect for minerals and to others to exploit water powers in Alberta that he has refused during all these years because the government of that province was not agreeable? Is there anything more than that in this precedent? It

does seem to me that we are not dealing merely with the principle of this bill, we are in reality dealing with the principle of any bill from whatever province it may come, as long as the subject matter would be solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities were it not for the fact that an international waterway is involved. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we should not confer the powers sought by this bill unless and until the provincial authorities give their consent. They are better judges than we of what is in the public interest in this matter with respect to that province; they are better able than we to determine the necessities of the case. Who are we, sitting in Ottawa, dealing with national problems affecting the country as a whole, that we should determine what local interests are involved in that particular province in respect of this question? Not until that province itself has expressed its willingness and give its consent should this act become operative and the powers conferred by it become exercisable. That is the position that should be taken; and any declaration that make^ this a work for the general advantage of Canada, made by this parliament under the powers conferred upon it by the British North America Act, is wholly at variance with the general principles which heretofore have governed in matters of this kind. Here we are dealing with a private enterprise which seeks legislative sanction from the parliament of Canada merely because the legislature of the province of Ontario has not the power to grant that sanction. I say therefore that if we give our approval with respect to that incorporation, and confer upon it the right to charge tolls and thereby obtain revenues, we are departing from the established practice; it is not customary for the Dominion government to declare a work such as this to be for the general advantage of Canada. I admit that instances may be found in some of the statutes wherein this is done, but those who have given the subject the most careful consideration are agreed that in these cases the declaration should not have been made. That declaration is made with respect to railways-operated for profit it is true-as well as with respect to other utilities of that sort; but these are under the regulatory power of the railway commission or of some other competent body; and in any case they are enterprises that serve more than one province and touch the borders of more than one section of the Dominion. That is the general situation. There may be exceptional conditions that justify a particular work being declared for the general advantage of Canada, when it is international in character. So far

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
as this matter is concerned, however, it seems to me that the committee should approach the consideration of it with very great care. Apparently the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) is of the opinion that this legislation should be enacted; he declared this afternoon that it was not in any sense a government measure. But while that is true it must be borne in mind that no one but the government can take the initative in having it declared that this undertaking is of national significance; without the consent of the federal government no undertaking can be declared for the general advantage of Canada. That is axiomatic with respect to the exercise of the constitutional powers to which I have referred. I need hardly say that I have no interest in the enterprise, but the principle involved is one from which this parliament should not lightly depart. That principle is this: When we are dealing with a matter wholly provincial in its aspects, affecting the people of one province-and the people of Ontario are profoundly affected by this proposed legislation-interfering with the scenic attractions and natural beauties of their park, unless and until that province concurs, these powers should not be exercised. And if it is deemed wise to make the exercise of these powers subject to a condition, namely, that action shall first have been taken by a foreign congress or legislature, much more should we insist that the powers be not exercised unless the people of the province directly affected have given their approval. This is not a political matter, I trust; I trust also that it will not in any sense divide parties, for my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) and my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. Pettit) are poles apart in their attitude to the question. Since, however, it has been determined that the power of this parliament shall be exercised-and there is a majority to carry out that determination-let us at least hedge the exercise of that power with such limitations and conditions and such safeguards as will enable us to say that no principle has been departed from and that, to use the language of the United States, the sovereign rights of the people of Ontario have not been sacrificed by this parliament for any purpose whatsoever.


Lucien Cannon: In answer to what the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said, may I point out that section 7 does not in any way indicate that the legislation enacted by this parliament shall be subject to any legislation that might be introduced either in the American congress or in any state legislature in the United States. That
is not the idea. This parliament is supreme within its own competence and can legislate as it sees fit. But not only have we these sovereign powers of legislation; we must exercise them in a practical way. We are now dealing with a proposed international bridge and we can confer powers for the construction only of half of that bridge. We must bear in mind always, therefore, what may be done so far as the other half is concerned; and this being so I think it is only common sense for this parliament to enact a provision that the powers conferred by this legislation shall not be exercised until we know what has been decided by competent authority on the other side, so as to obviate the possible eventuality of a Canada company building one half of a bridge without the other half being constructed by such persons as may receive authority for the purpose from the American congress or from a state legislature.
As regards my hon. friend's argument, that if the state of New York is to be consulted the province of Ontario should also be consulted, I quite agree that, in the first place, this is not a government measure; and secondly, I agree that it is not a political question. But my hon. friend has raised a question of law, and I would point out that the situation on the American side is not the same as that which obtains in Canada, so far as jurisdiction is concerned. The basic principle of our Canadian constitution, as regards the distribution of powers between federal and provincial governments or legislatures, is entirely dissimilar to the principle which governs on the American side. Under the British North America Act, whatever powers have not been expressly given to the provinces belong to the Dominion: on the American side, whatever powers have not been given to the federal government by the states remain in the states. In other words, the residuum of power belongs to this parliament, while in the United States the residuum of power belongs to the states. So that in this matter the state of New York has more extensive powers than has the province of Ontario.


Mr. GEARY:: Why?


Lucien Cannon: I explained why. Now,
considering the question in the light of this basic principle, can we say that the province of Ontario has any legislative competence in the matter? It seems to me we must come to the conclusion that it has not. If this federal parliament does not legislate to empower the company to build the bridge, the province of Ontario cannot do so. Even

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
if the company applied to the legislature of Ontario, that legislature could take no action. Indeed, even if the province of Ontario itself decided to build the bridge, it would have to come for that purpose to the competent authority, which is this parliament. And this applies not only in international waters; as my hon. friend knows, it applies to interprovincial bridges within Canada. If a company wants to build a bridge between two provinces, neither of those provinces has the power to legislate; the Dominion parliament does so. This principle is not new; it is not unknown in our legislation.
And now as regards the third point raised by my hon. friend, that only this government can declare this work to be in the general interest of Canada. That is an incomplete statement of the law. The government have no such power; as a government they have no legislative power or authority whatever. Under our constitution the government are the executive authority, but the legislative authority is the parliament of Canada, and it is for this house and for the other house to declare if any work is in the public interest of Canada. The government cannot do that.
In conclusion I wish to draw to the attention of my hon. friend the fact that similar acts have been (passed already; this is nothing new. My hon. friend stated to the committee that we were establishing a vicious principle, but in very recent years we passed an act for the construction of the Buffalo and Erie bridge, and the province of Ontario was not consulted for the very good reasons which I have just stated. My hon. friend from Toronto has raised one question; he says that what I aim saying may be true, but on the other hand have we power as a federal govem-met to grant authority for the construction of a bridge on property which belongs to the crown in the right of the province of Ontario?


George Reginald Geary: Who said that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Privy Council decided on that the other day.


Lucien Cannon: The point was raised the other day. The only right of the province of Ontario would be to the extent of the park property on which the bridge would rest on the Canadian side, but with all deference, I submit that that question has been settled by the Privy Council in the Rouyn railway case, and also in the Montreal harbour case, to the effect that the federal parliament has such a power. I cannot see how we are interfering with provincial rights at all.
[Mr. Cannon. I


George Reginald Geary: May I ask the Solicitor General if he was referring to me when he spoke of the member for Toronto?


Lucien Cannon: I may be wrong, but I understood my hon. friend to interject a remark about our interfering with provincial property.


George Reginald Geary: Oh, no. If I might, I would explain to the minister the point of my interjection. It was that it carries the matter no further to distinguish between the legislative functions of the provinces and the Dominion on one hand, and of the states and the United States on the other. If the allotment of power in this regard is to the state or to congress, that closes the matter. If it is not alloted to either, the argument of my hon. friend might have some validity, but I do not know that the point arises.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the Solicitor
General could not have read section 7. This act is not being passed to authorize the construction of a bridge half way over the river. Section 7 says:
. The company may construct. . . a bridge across the Niagara river for the passage of pedestrians, vehicles, carriages, electric cars or street cars and for any other like purpose, with all necessary approaches, from a point at or near a point between the property of the Canadian National Railways on River road and the north limit of Bender street in the city of Niagara Falls in the county of Welland in the province of Ontario, to a point in the city of Niagara Falls in the state of New York, one of the United States of America, north of the present upper steel arch bridge. ..
Therefore it will be seen that this is not an endeavour to incorporate a company to build a bridge half way across the river, but permission is sought to construct a bridge from a point in Canada to a particular point in the United States. It is also provided as follows:
...but the company shall not commence the actual construction of the said bridge, nor exercise any of the powers hereunder, until an act of Congress of the United States or other competent authority in the United States of America has been passed authorizing or approving the bridging of the said river, but the company may, in the meantime, acquire the lands, submit their plans to the Governor in Council and do all other things authorized by this act.
Therefore we have seen fit to say that this parliament is not at all concerned with the consent of the province of Ontario, but that the bridge must not be constructed until it is approved by the state of New York or the United States of America. I say that is a wrong principle, the people on the Canadian side have a right to be consulted as to whether

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
or not their land shall be taken for that purpose, just as the people in New York have to determine whether or not land may be used for this purpose on their side of the river.
But let me go a step further. The Solicitor General referred to the fact that this was in no sense a matter in which the government were interested, but we have observed that while in succeeding sections it is provided that the provisions of the Railway Act shall prevail, in section 7 it is provided that the plans shall be submitted to whom? To the railway commission? No, to the governor in council. And who is the governor in council? The governor in council is the government of the day. Clearly, if this act must go into force, these plans should be submitted to the Board of Railway Commissioners, just as the plans of any railway -which crosses the boundary are submitted. Why should we make the Railway Act apply in succeeding sections but say here that the governor in council shall approve of the plans, a political body as against the commission? Who would come before a committee of this house and ask for the passing of a bill to create a railway company whose plans were to be approved by the governor in council but whose powers were to be regulated by the Railway Act? What is the reason for this distinction? Why have the governor in council in the one instance and the railway commissioners in the other? It seems reasonably clear to me that ii you are going to set up a third power, that power must be the railway commission, which must exercise its authority throughout. You must not make a political body operate in the one instance as against a statutory body in the other. If we are going to pass this statute, at least let us do it as it should be done, making the approval of plans, the determination of routes and matters of that sort, questions to be settled by the railway commission just as though this were a railway.
My main purpose in rising at the moment was to direct attention to the fact that we are authorizing the construction of a bridge going from point to point, from Niagara Falls in one country to Niagara Falls in the other, and that while we have jurisdiction over only half the waterway, we are granting the company power to construct a bridge over the whole distance, although we provide that they can only exercise those powers subject to something else. I submit we should also say that these powers should not be exercised in Ontario unless the people, as represented by the government of this province, are willing and desirous that they should be so exercised. That is the position I desire to make clear.


Lucien Cannon: In answer to my hon.
friend I may say that the jurisdiction of this parliament is also territorial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly is.


Lucien Cannon: And my hon. friend will never contend that we can legislate out of our own territory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we are trying to do.


Lucien Cannon: This bill covers the construction of an international bridge. Territorially, our jurisdiction goes to the middle of the river; we must stop there, but we say that that half of the bridge can be built, and that these people cannot exercise their powers until they have received, or until another company has received from the United States authorities, exactly the same powers which we are conferring now upon a Canadian company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what it says.


Lucien Cannon: When my hon. friend says we are granting power to go on the American side he knows perfectly well that every law passed by this parliament is subject to our territorial jurisdiction.


George Reginald Geary: Perhaps the Solicitor General will tell me if he does not think that under the provisions of the British North America Act this parliament alone has jurisdiction. I understand that to be his contention. If that be the case, why include the subsection which declares that the works of the company are for the general advantage of Canada; is there any doubt at all as to our jurisdiction?


Lucien Cannon: The government did not put that in. Judging from what was said by the sponsor of the bill and those who supported it in committee, this bill has been prepared in accordance with the provisions contained in former bills passed for similar purposes. This bill is practically a copy of the Buffalo and Erie bill which was passed by this house.


George Reginald Geary: I agree that you don't need that clause.	.


Mr. CAHAN:: I think it is clear on looking at the British North America Act, 1867, section 92, subsection 10, that this bill to construct a bridge across an international river must be authorized by act of the parliament of Canada. Section 92 says:
In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,-

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
And then subsection 10:
Local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes:-
(a) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province:
Then subclause b. may be omitted because it refers to steamships. Subclause c. says:
Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
It seems to me that c., under which a work is declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada applies only to those works which are not already covered by a. and b., and if this international bridge is covered by a., then c. does not aipply, and we should not attempt to exercise the power under c. But referring to a. again, clearly an international bridge comes within its provisions:
Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings. . . extending beyond the limits of the province.
Now this project does extend beyond the limits of the province and it .can only be incorporated by the parliament of Canada. Therefore the petitioners have properly applied to this federal parliament for the incor poration of the company. In the second place, the bridge cannot be constructed beyond the centre of the river except by the legislative authority either of the state of New York or of the congress of Uuited States accordingly as it comes within the jurisdiction of one or the other, with which I am not concerned. I know that on the question of navigation the United States congress in recent years contends that it exercises full control. The state of New York on the other hand has propounded a doctrine somewhat different. I do not think it concerns us whether the legislative authority to construct this bridge on the American side of the river comes from the 'state of New York or from the congress of the United States; but this parliament having been asked to incorporate a company to build a bridge to the centre of the river, the question arises whether the province of Ontario might not well be consulted in the matter. We all know that there were some heartburnings in the province of Quebec in view of the *Rouyn railway decision. There is a strong provincial feeling both in Quebec and in Ontario that such matters which intimately concern these provinces should be submitted 
to their respective legislatures for approval. It does seem to me therefore that the Solicitor General has not quite fairly met the main and pertinent argument of the leader of the opposition, namely, that inasmuch as this bridge and the approaches thereto will affect property owned by the crown in the right of the province of Ontario, passing though its property, destroying the beauty of the approaches, interfering with the design which they have made for a public park, which is well known not only throughout that province but throughout the world, it is a question whether we should not as a matter of comity, as a matter of the consideration which is due to another government and another legislature, insert in the bill a provision that this legislation shall come into force only when approved by the legislature or by the government of the province concerned. The real point made by the leader of the opposition, as I understood it, was whether, as a matter of comity, as a matter of complaisance and good will-as this does affect a property owned by the crown in the right of the province, a public park of great beauty and renown-there should not be consultation between the federal and provincial authorities; and just as I would, coming from Quebec, be disposed to suDmit that whenever federal legislation affects the rights of that province the legislative or governmental authority of that province should be consulted, so I am disposed to contend that in this case, although we have the power to authorize the promoters to build the bridge right through that park, although we could authorize the construction of approaches to that bridge which would destroy the park-


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend was not
here this afternoon and I would refer him to section 19.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But section 19, when it was under consideration in committee, did not seem to me to be quite broad enough.


Lucien Cannon: Has my hon. friend an
amended copy of the bill?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does my hon. friend want me to read section 19 of the amended bill? I have it before me.


Lucien Cannon: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It says that the company shall obtain the consent in writing of the commissioners of the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls park, but that consent is only for the location,

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
construction or operation, of the works mentioned upon or over the boulevard of the Queen Victoria Niagara Falls Park Commission. It is very limited indeed. ,


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not wish to obtrude my views upon the committee.


Mr CASGRAIN:: The objection comes
from hon. members opposite.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was simply trying to
obtain a clear view of the situation. I do not think that section 19 is broad enough; and if this parliament were endeavouring to pass such legislation affecting in the same degree the rights and interests of either crown lands or any public lands, especially a public park owned by the crown in the right of the province of Quebec, I should be disposed to demand that the legislature of that province should be asked to sanction the legislation of this parliament. I should be anxious that while we may incorporate this company, while we grant to it all the powers which we can give to it, to build to the centre of the river if you like-I do not object so much to the words "across the river"-nevertheless I would place in the bill a provision that it shall come into force only when approved by the government or by the legislature of the province of Ontario.


Charles A. Stewart: Would my
hon. friend not be setting up rather a difficult precedent to overcome?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is a precedent that I
think we shall eventually have to assert, because, for instance, the Rouyn railway case caused many heartburnings and considerable bitterness in Quebec, and I think it would have been well if the province had been consulted in regard to that matter. It is well that these precedents which the Solicitor General has mentioned, should not be followed in this case.


Lucien Cannon: The province of Ontario
was represented before the committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Quite bo.


Lucien Cannon: We gave their representative this amendment for his consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not come back.


Lucien Cannon: He did not come back
and it was understood that, should he have any representations to make on behalf of Ontario he was to make them in order that
we could deal with them when the bill would be in committee at this stage. Mr. Henderson never communicated with the chairman or myself or, to my knowledge, with any other member. Not only is that the case, but as to the matter of courtesy that my hon. friend has brought up, the committee realized that they should deal with Ontario as one parliament with another or one government with another. AVe adjourned the consideration of this bill for a whole week with the understanding that the hon. member for Lincoln was to get in touch with the government of Ontario in order that we might have their representations. I think the committee showed every consideration for the rights of Ontario and the official representative of that province. After he had taken cognizance of section 19 he never made another objection to the bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understood some objection had been made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was instructed not to go back because he would thereby be recognized aud approving the principle of the bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understood that was the ground, but I trust he was not in any way discourteous to the committee.


Lucien Cannon: Not at all. I do not want to convey that impression. On the contrary he seemed to be quite satisfied.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But if he did not express his satisfaction; if his ground for not interfering further in regard to an amendment of this kind was that he would thereby be recog-niezd as approving the principle of the bill, I could understand that consideration prevailing with him. But I am dealing with the matter now in a broader spirit, as we should deal w'ith it, and I am disposed to think that the province should be consulted.


George Hamilton Pettit: I wish to correct a wrong expression that apparently is abroad, namely, that the bill has been killed by the legislature of the state of New York. I have been informed by the Buffalo solicitors who are looking after the bill that that is not the case; that the bill with a number of others has been sent to the rules committee of the legislature. This is their usual method of doing things. The bill is there with those other bills and it will receive consideration in due course. Therefore the rumour that the bill is killed, is, according to my instructions, without foundation.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is just one fact that has been overlooked in connection with this matter. This is a railway bill under the provisions of the Railway Act, and the word "railway" by subsection 21 of section 2 is defined as follows:
"Railway" means any railway which the company has authority to construct or operate, and includes all branches, extensions, sidings, stations, depots, wharves, rolling stock, equipment, stores, property real or personal and works connected therewith, and also any railway bridge, tunnel or other structure which the company is authorized to construct; and, except where the context is inapplicable, includes street railway and tramway.
It will be observed that the section itself deals with electric cars or street cars, and as the Railway Act provides that the plans must be approved by the board I submit, assuming that you are going to adopt this bill, that the next to the last line of section (1) of section 7, should read:
Submit their plans to the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
Instead of:
Submit their plans to the governor in council.
The one is a political body, and the body to which the plans should be submitted is clearly the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, if they are to comply with the provisions of the statute in that behalf. The provisions as to how plans and their submission to the board are to be dealt with, will be found in section 167 and following sections of the Railway Act. If we assume that you are going to adopt the principle of leaving out the province of Ontario, clearly the provision with respect to the approval of plans should be by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada and not by the governor in council.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to point out
the contradictory nature of the wording of the clause. In one part it says that the company shall do nothing whatever until they receive the consent of the American body, and another part says that they can do everything pending the receipt of that consent. Let me read the language. This is what they shall not do:
The company shall not commence the actual construction of the said bridge, nor exercise any of the powers hereunder.
"Hereunder" does not mean under the bridge, but under this act. The company could not acquire land under it; nor issue shares-in a word they could do nothing under

it at all until they get the consent of the American body. Then the concluding lines read:
But the company may, in the meantime acquire the lands, submit their plans to the governor in council and to all other things authorized by this act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: "Hereunder" may mean
under section 7 only.


Alan Webster Neill: It applies to the whole act.
If that is common sense, I do not know what common sense is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would move that all
the words after the word "river" in subsection 1 Of section 7, that is the words-
But the company may, in the meantime acquire the lands, submit their plans to the governor in council and do all other things authorized by this act.
-be struck out.


Lucien Cannon: I am not going to raise
any point of order as regards the amendment coming from my hon. friend, but it is a well known fact that notice has to be given of any amendment to a private bill. If that rule is not observed, we shall very often be in a difficult position. The committee has studied this bill seriously and we have brought it back in the best possible shape. Unless the rule is observed and we have notice 'of any amendment before it is presented to the house, members of the committee might not be in as good a position as they would otherwise be to discuss the nature of the amendment and see whether it should be accepted or rejected. I am in no position to-day to express an opinion on it. I examined the bill in conjunction with the members of the committee; we did our very best and brought it back to the house, and if my hon. friend wants to amend it, I think notice should be given.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to know the rule the Solicitor General would cite in support of his contention.


Lucien Cannon: It is a well-known rule.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not so sure of that, because the house frequently amends private bills in committee. We must not raise points of order and establish rules here recklessly on an important matter of this kind. I am quite willing to bow to the rules.


Lucien Cannon: I should like my hon.
friend to understand me properly. If the leader of the opposition insists on his amend-

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge
ment, I simply say for the information of the members in general, we should be given notice of these amendments so that we may have time to consider them. We have spent considerable time on this bill in committee.


Alan Webster Neill: I would refer to standing
order 113, which reads:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill, in a committee of the whole house, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
This could perhaps be called not an important amendment.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: It would materially
change the subject matter.


Lucien Cannon: That is rule 113, Mr. Chairman, and I think my hon. friend will admit that this amendment, as well as anything coming from him, is a material amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The sense of the amendment is merely to make this bill consistent. This bill makes the whole exercise of the powers subject to the Railway Act, and it is now proposed to make this particular portion of the bill subject to the governor in council. I say that since we have a bill dependent upon the Railway Act it is an unheard of thing to make part of it subject to the governor in council; it is the first private bill of this character you will find it in that I know of. The old incorporations all referred to the governor in council, but since we passed the new Railway Act that body has been set up for this purpose, and all these powers have been subject to the approval of the board. I do not think this amendment can be regarded as important in the sense in which those words are used in the rule. Certainly if the Solicitor General's point is right, this house becomes a rubber stamp for any private bills that have been considered by the committee unless we give one day's notice of an amendment. In this instance the rule says that one day's notice has to be given in respect of private bills, but this bill was not on the order paper, if my memory serves me, until to-day.


Lucien Cannon: It was on the order paper last Friday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is correct. I
suppose that notice could have been given as to this amendment, but I certainly did not think it was of sufficient importance to necessitate the giving of notice. Its purpose is to make the bill consistent, and I assumed that the law officers would do it when their attention was directed to the matter, as I think they should do.


Lucien Cannon: The reason for the rule is very simple. The house refers a bill to a special committee in order that it may study it and the discussion in the house be shortened when the committee reports back. In order to make sure that only important features of the bill shall be dealt with by amendment, the rule says that notice shall be given, so that we shall know exactly what is coming up. But I do not want to take undue advantage of a rule to prevent my hon. friend from submitting an amendment to the bill if he sees fit. I do not know that his amendment would not be a good one; I am not in a position either to accept or to reject it. It is private legislation, it is true; the government is not responsible for it, but before we amend a clause of this importance I think it would be fair if my hon. friend would agree to the committee reporting progress on the bill, and in the meantime if he wishes to bring in any amendments, we can be given proper notice and have time to study them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that is an exceedingly fair submission, but I did not think the Solicitor General would regard the suggestion I am now making as an important one. I thought he would probably be glad to adopt it. The hon. member for Toronto is probably correct when he suggests to me that the reason why the words "governor in council" are used there is because they were taken from an old bill, the old suspension bridge bill. We all know that the governor in council was the relevant authority before the passing of the Railway Act, but since the passing of that act all these matters are dealt with by the Board of Railway Commissioners and not by the governor in council. Probably that is the explanation. There is no doubt that, according to the rule, as my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi has pointed out, notice must be given of an important amendment, but I did not regard this of sufficient importance because I thought that once the Solicitor General's attention had been directed to the fact that there was an inconsistency between the use of the words "Governor in Council" in one section and "Board of Railway Commissioners" in the other, he would be glad to accept the suggestion I made. However, I think the suggestion he now makes as to how to deal with this matter is an eminently reasonable one.


Lucien Cannon: As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to making the change if the sponsor of the bill accepts it. He is the responsible party.



Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge


George Hamilton Pettit: The words governor in
council are used throughout the bill, and if a change is to be made it would have to be made throughout.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not quite the
fact.


Lucien Cannon: I do not see much objection to the plans being submitted to the railway board, if that suits my hon. friend who is sponsoring the bill. On the other hand, I would point out that when an amendment is moved in committee of the whole, the committee does not accept or reject the amendment, but it is moved in such a form that the bill is referred back to the select standing committee for consideration.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Usually the motion is to
refer it back to the select standing committee for the purpose of considering a certain amendment.


George Hamilton Pettit: I would suggest that the
wording remain as it is, as the words governor in council are used throughout the bill. It would complicate matters if this change were made in just one clause. The construction of the bridge, its location, and the terms, provisions and regulations are all made subject to the approval of the governor in council. As sponsor of the bill I would therefore respectfully suggest that the wording remain as it is. There would be no harm done in leaving it that way.


John Frederick Johnston: Is the hon. leader of
the exposition pressing his amendment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The position is this. If the Solicitor General thinks this is an important amendment within the meaning of the rule, he is entitled undoubtedly to a day's notice. If this parliament has any powers at all, it must have powers to amend legislation in some form or another. I am serious as to the necessity of this amendment, because it deals with a matter of the utmost importance, having regard to the provisions upon which the Solicitor General has laid so much emphasis. There are other amendments in the same position. I do not conceive it to be inconsistent with my duty in the public interest to point out that this bill refers to the governor in council, a reference which has been antiquated for thirty years; since the passing of the Railway Act the words have always been "Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada." As was suggested the other evening, this bill should probably have gone to the railway committee, as I moved, but it was pressed that it should go to the private bills committee, although Mr. Todd /Mr. Cannon.]
thought probably it should go to both the railway committee and the private bills committee. It seems to me the proper motion now would be to refer the bill back for further consideration by the railway committee, which should have considered it perhaps in the first instance, as the Minister of Railways felt at the moment. Therefore, in order to obviate any further discussion, I would move that the bill be referred back for consideration by the railway committee in order that the point may be considered by the law officers of the crown.


Alan Webster Neill: I submit that that motion is out of order. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has referred to the practice that the motion should be to refer the bill back to the committee for the purpose of having them do so-and-so, but that form of words is applicable only on the third reading of the bill.	You cannot
make such an amendment in committee of the whole. How can you move in committee to refer the bill to another committee? That can only be done on the third reading or on consideration of the report of the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can ask that the committee rise and report progress, and that the bill be referred back for further consideration by the railway committee, it having not yet been considered by that committee. I quite agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that on the third reading of the bill, if we desired to amend it, we would have to move that the bill be not now read a third time, but that it be " referred back to the committee for the purpose of adding thereto the following words"; but it is also the custom to move amendments to a bill during its progress through committee of the whole. This bill really should have gone to the railway committee. Mr. Todd in his letter to the Speaker referred to the fact that the bill might properly go to both committees. It went to the private bills committee. That committee reported the bill back here, and it is now being considered by a committee of the whole house. During the discussion here a question arises that affects the application of the Railway Act, indicating clearly that the bill should go to the railway committee. It is very important in that sense because the word "railway" is defined in the Railway Act to mean an electrical car or tramway line. Therefore, if my position in respect to the amendment is correct, the bill itself should be considered also by the railway committee. I submit the committee should rise and report progress for the .purpose of enabling the Solicitor General to consider other amend-

St. Clair Transit Company
ments of the same category which certainly will be made during the progress of the bill through committee.


Lucien Cannon: The point of order is well taken. No amendment to this bill can be made unless previous notice has been given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is true, if the amendment is important.


Lucien Cannon: The suggestion I make is that we should report progress. But there will be no question of referring the bill to a committee; and from this day until the bill is considered again it will be the duty of anyone who wishes to amend the bill to give proper notice of any amendments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite right.
Progress reported.



ST. CLAIR TRANSIT COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. T. GOODISON (West Lambton) moved that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 23 to incorporate the St. Clair Transit Company:
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I do not
know whether the same features arise in this bill as in the other measure that we have been discussing, but no doubt the Solicitor General can tell us. If similar features do arise, the two bills should be considered together.


Lucien Cannon: I do not admit for one moment that the bill which we were considering a minute ago should have gone to the railway committee instead of the private bills committee. My learned friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) made a rather laboured argument that because electric tramways are mentioned in the Railway Act the bill should go before the railway committee. But to determine the character of a bill we must consider its main features. Electric lines are only incidental; the fundamental element of the two bills, and of this one in particular, is the construction of a bridge. I think the private bills committee had a perfect right to consider this and the preceding bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Solicitor General will notice that this 'bill confers the expropriation powers contained in the Railway Act.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In fact that portion of the Railway Act is incorporated in this bill.
56103-95i


Lucien Cannon: A company or an individual comes before parliament for private-legislation; if either wants to be under general legislation a private bill is unnecessary. It is only in cases when exceptional legislation is required that we have a bill of this kind before us. So when, for instance, we confer on a private corporation the right to expropriate, we immediately give a right which belongs really only to a public body. In this particular case expropriation powers are given because we consider that the building of a bridge is in the public interest, and in order to confer those powers we have to refer to the existing law, that is, to the Railway Act; but that reference by no means brings the bill within the Railway Act.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the Solicitor General presume to say that either or both of these companies could have proceeded with the work under a charter obtained by virtue of the Joint Stock Companies Act?


Lucien Cannon: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: His whole argument
amounted to that, or it amounted to nothing. He said the promoters desire a special charter, but that they could have had a charter under the Joint Stock Companies Act.


An hon. MEMBER:: Under the general law.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend misunderstands. I said that if they could have done what they were seeking under the general law they would not apply for a charter; it is because under the general law they cannot proceed that they apply for private legislation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is precisely my argument, that these companies have to come under the Railway Act to a certain extent.


Lucien Cannon: If they wish to expropriate.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How are they going to expropriate footings for their bridge? They must have powers of expropriation under the Railway Aot.


Lucien Cannon: No, they get their expropriation power under this act, not under the Railway Act. In exercising that particular power of expropriation granted for a special purpose they have to follow the clauses of the general act. That is the law.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the Solicitor General tell me what general law they could have come undeT without getting a special bill enacted?


Lucien Cannon: I am sorry my hon. friend does not grasp my argument.
St. Clair Transit Company


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is nothing to grasp.


Lucien Cannon: I am glad to argue with those who are prepared to conduct discussion in a gentlemanly way. Throughout the day I have done my very best to answer arguments intelligently, but if my hon. friend wishes to bully anybody I decline to be bullied.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend is himself trying to bully. A moment ago I asked the Solicitor General, as the law adviser of the crown, what general act the promoters of this bill could come under in order to exercise the powers they are now seeking. He pointed out that the company chose to apply for a special bill. I submit that inasmuch as this bill invokes important portions of the Railway Act it should have gone to the railway committee. He has not answered that argument in the slightest degree. I think this bill is in exactly the same position as the preceding bill, and should stand with it until we have had time to examine the various sections and give notice of any amendments which we may consider necessary.


Mr. DUNNING:: Without in any way entering into the merits of the question I would point out that this bill, which does not appear to be contentious, has been, rightly or wrongly, before one of the responsible committees of the house. I presume that the interested parties-I know nothing at all about them- have gone to the expense and trouble of appearing before that committee in order to make out their case, and apparently the bill has come back to the committee of the whole house in the usual course. Now inasmuch as the private bills committee is, to say the least, equally as competent, as this committee to deal with a matter of this sort, would it not be dealing more fairly with the parties concerned to allow matters to proceed at this stage? I felt, as the leader of the opposition felt when these bills first came before the house, that they might more properly have gone to the railway committee. I understand that the clerk of committees, who is a student of these matters, gives the opinion that the bills in question could properly have gone to either or both of these committees. Why, then, should we put the interested parties to the trouble of appearing again before another committee of the house, no more representative-


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not my motion.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understood my hon.
friend wished to have the bill referred to the railway committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; I simply wanted to
have the same procedure adopted as was followed in connection with the previous bill. We contend that the bill should originally have gone to the other committee, but let that go. I notice in clause 8 of the present bill that there arises the same question we have been debating under clause 7 of the last bill. Provision is made for vehicular traffic, street railways, and so forth. Our contention is that in this clause as well as in some of the others reference should be made to the railway board rather than to the governor in council. It is a rather important principle. I say, therefore, that in order to prepare the necessary amendments and to give due notice of them the committee should rise and report progress. That procedure was followed1 in regard to the previous bill and it should be done in this instance also. We shall only reach the point where the committee will be arguing on the very same question we have already decided. I move therefore that the committee rise and report progress.


Lucien Cannon: I suggest that we consider the various clauses of the bill until we come to one in connection with which some hon. member will indicate his readiness to move an amendment. Suppose we adopted! my hon. friend's suggestion and had no notice of any amendment: what would be the position then? Let us proceed until we have a statement from some hon. member that he wishes to move an amendment to a particular clause.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I have no objection to
that course. I simply wanted to be consistent and have the committee follow the same procedure which was adopted in relation to the other bill. We can pass some of these clauses if the committee so desires, although I notice that the very next one or so refers to works and undertakings which are to be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. Under that clause the same question arises.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
On section 4-Capital stock.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a clause that should be very carefully considered. Any man familiar with the corporate structure of these enterprises will realize that for the first time in a bill of this character we have capital stock without nominal or par value, and the question suggests itself-on payment of what sum may the company commence operations?

St. Clair Transit Company
Both the Companies' Act and the Railway Act are clear on this point. This section as at present drafted declares only that there shall be 100,000 shares of no par value. Each share, however, shall be of the same value, the issue and allotment of the shares to be made from time ito time for such consideration as may be fixed by the board of directors, by by-law or resolution duly confirmed, which permits the issue of the whole of the common stock for services rendered in getting this charter. Now that is precisely the one thing which this .parliament is endeavouring to stop, and I do think that the law officers of the crown failed to look into the full implications of the section; otherwise they would not have submitted it in its present form. I would certainly prepare an amendment covering this point. Even the Companies' Act itself, when shares are without nominal or par value, provides that the Secretary of State shall insist that a value be given the shares, for the purpose of fees, of not less than so many dollars per share. This section however, permits the whole capital stock to be issued for services rendered in getting the franchise. What we are asked to do in this bill is to create an entity, a transit company; in the second place we are granting it powers; and, thirdly, we are conferring upon the company a franchise which may or may not be valuable, and in regard to which I express no opinion at the moment. But to make the franchise valuable tolls may be imposed, and these tolls are to be approved by the governor in council. I would point out

nnd the Minister of Railways will bear me out-that nothing is so impossible of realization as the satisfactory exercise of these powers by a body like the governor in council, which has no machinery for the purpose. The proper body for the discharge of such functions is of course the Board of Railway Commissioners, whose business it is to deal with matters of this kind, and who have the necessary machinery as well .as experts who may advise them.
It is important, in dealing with this question, that due regard be had to the actual money investment of the enterprise. A few years hence someone may come from Samia -if we build this bridge-and complain that tolls are too high. Thereupon people owning 100,000 shares will come forward and say, "These shares cost us an enormous sum of money, and parliament having recognized that fact, you must not interfere with vested interests and deprive us of dividends to which we are entitled1 in view of the' price we paid." Now, I say, is the time to anticipate any difficulties of this nature. Now is the time to declare that these shares without any nominal
or par value shall have affixed to them, for purposes of the statute, a value of not less than so much per share. The Solicitor General makes provision whereby, on the retirement of the shares, the works created under the authority of the statute fall into possession of the people-of the United States with respect to the American half of the undertaking, and of Canada so far as the other half is concerned. It becomes, therefore, a matter of transcendent importance that we do not deal with watered stock, lest my hon. friends from the west and from other sections of the country as well, say afterwards that what we have done is to give legislative sanction and authority to something which has created a vested interest that must be protected. I know that the Solicitor General is anxious to serve the public interest in this matter and I suggest to him, therefore, that the clause as it now stands is open to the gravest abuse, namely, the issue of the whole capital stock of the enterprise for the purpose of obtaining the franchise. That is exactly what will happen: it has happened times without number in this country. I could show my hon. friends statutes of that kind. As my hon. friend from Marquette (Mr. Glenn) knows, the common stock of an enterprise is often issued to the promoters, while the mortgage money builds the enterprise. Let us deal with this matter while we may and not when it is too late. That is my suggestion; and coupled with that I say in all seriousness to the government that it is a very grave matter, especially to the Minister of Railways, to enact that tolls shall be approved by the governor in council, a body which is without the proper machinery and without those who can give expert advice. Suppose the governor in council is suddenly called upon to decide some question of tolls. The government is faced with a political question and under the pressure that comes from political friends, who say, "This is our bill; this is our enterprise, and we want you to give us a square deal1 in relation to it." Then they suggest the results which will follow from it; "We will be able to assist you and support you; we want your assistance in getting this done." That is 'but the evidence of human nature as applied to ordinary politics, one party or the other. I am not saying this in particular to my hon. friends yonder; I refer simply to the government of the day. For the moment at least let us leave it at something better than that and say that the Board of Railway Commissioners, whether or not we have confidence in them, shall deal with the question of tolls and all these questions incident to the develop-
St. Clair Transit Company

ment of a transportation enterprise, whether it be a bridge across a stream or railway which spans a continent. I submit that is the position this house should take, and for my part I propose to express myself in any way within my power and to offer the house such amendments as may be necessary to achieve that purpose. I ask the Solicitor General now to accept the motion that this committee rise and report progress, in order that he may consider the matters upon which I have just touched and that when the amendments are submitted he will have a clear understanding of the reasons in the back of my mind at least for making these suggestions.


Lucien Cannon: I agree with pleasure to the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with bills of this character which in previous sessions have been submitted to the committee on railways and canals, very frequently the committee have included a provision giving control of the rates or tolls to be charged to the Hoard of Railway Commissioners, taking cognizance of the fact that that board have the necessary machinery with which to determine such matters. I should like to point out to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition that there are other matters in connection <with this bill the control of which in the nature tof things must be vested in the governor in council and not in the Board of Railway Com-tnissioners. I have reference particularly to those features of the bill which deal with its relation to navigable waters; and 'here may be other such matters. I have only just read the bill for the first time, but in addition to the matter of toils there is this other complication which has been many times discussed in the committee. It is that after all, "whether it be the governor in council or the Board of Railway Commissioners, the decision as -to the tolls to be charged cannot rest entirely with any authority in this country; whatever competent authority may deal with the matter in the United States will have to agree also as to the rates to be charged, because a man does not pay a toll to go half way across the bridge in either direction. He pays a toll to go completely across, and there must be Some measure of agreement. In studies of these matters on previous occasions before the railway committee it has appeared that there are a variety of authorities in the United States dealing with them, dependent to some extent upon the state in which the United States part of the enterprise is located.
(Mr. Bennett.]
1 Mr. BENNETT: Or whether authority is "vested in congress or in the state legislature.
' Mr. DUNNING: Precisely. It is not an easy matter, and I can hardly approve of loading up the railway commission with matters with which it is not equipped to deal either by its constitution or by its organization. In matters of tolls generally, however, we have taken the view in the past that the railway commission is the most competent authority to decide such matters. I might point out that in all the bills which have been passed heretofore in many previous sessions, and which contained the provision that the governor in council shall decide upon certain matters, it has been the practice of the governor in council under all preceding governments-I do not know that such a case has arisen under the present administration-to refer matters affecting tolls to the body which is at the disposal of the government for determination. That is, "although the governor in council has the power, it instructs the Board of Railway Commissioners to make a report as to what is desirable. So I do not know that there is any very important point involved, although conceivably it might be best to place the matter directly in the hands of the Board of Railway Commissioners.
1 There was one argument made in a previous session in favour of retaining the governor in council as the final authority-I submit it to the house for what it is worth-namely, that the Board of Railway Commissioners in making a decision has no authority to take into account considerations other than those dealt with in the Railway Act; it has no power to make an agreement with a foreign body. The governor in council, of course, has authority to take into account considerations having to do with what the competent body in the foreign country may have decided with respect to the same matter.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Could not the railway board do that also?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am at a slight disadvantage as compared wi-th the learned gentlemen on both sides of the house in a matter of this sort, but I am instructed that under the Railway Act the Board of Railway Commissioners cannot agree with another body,- but must reach their conclusions based upon the authority which is theirs under that act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Probably so, but taking into consideration the findings of any foreign railway commission or other authority. That is

Questions
Certainly a matter which would be presented to the Canadian railway board for its consideration as one of the important factors in the case.


James Dew Chaplin: I am very glad indeed
to hear what the Minister of Railways has had to say; I am ^lad to know that there is a possibility that the tolls of these other bridge companies may come before the railway commission. In all these charters we have been discussing-not particularly in respect to this bill because it is a new one- there are provisions to which I have formerly called the attention of the Solicitor General, that these tdlls are to be reviewed and approved by the governor in council. I have not very much confidence in that part of the government; that is so vague and indefinite.
.For thirty years tolls have been collected which have never come before the governor in council, and I am very glad indeed, knowing what I do about the matter, to have the chance of getting those tolls before a commission which is alive, rather than before a dead one.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not want my hon. friend to misunderstand what I said; I spoke with no heat at aill.


James Dew Chaplin: Neither did I.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was simply discussing
the practical aspects of the situation. In connection with those old charters, I presume if any party considered himself aggrieved by the tolls which might have been approved thirty years ago and never amended-


Mr. OHAPLIN:: There is no record that
they were ever approved.


Charles Avery Dunning: Any person feeling himself aggrieved could find out by reference to the charter what was the controlling body, and it would then be necessary only to apply to any minister of the crown, or to the Prime Minister as president of the council, for consideration of any complaint.


James Dew Chaplin: If the hon. gentleman had been following the debate he would have known that 12,000 people on one side of the river and 24,000 people on the other side are complaining about these rates. Surely something about it must have leaked through to some of the members of the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend
mean to say that in the important position which he occupies on the parks commission he did not know there was an appeal to the governor in council in connection with these rates?


James Dew Chaplin: I was asked that question before, and my answer then was that we have tried to mind our own business. It was . none of our concern.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend represents those people.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not. I am a park
commissioner, and we have nothing to do with that,.


John Frederick Johnston: Order, please. The
leader of the opposition made a motion some time ago, which is not debatable, that the committee rise and report progress.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar) moved the second reading of Bill No. 68, to incorporate the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Explain.


Mr. BROWN:: This is a bill to incorporate the Northwest Canada Conference Evangelical Church, and its purpose is set forth in the preamble. It is simply to grant to this body the usual powers that are granted to all such bodies, to transact the temporal business that is connected with any of the churches.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	What was the total cost of the Hunter inquiry?
2.	What is the total amount of money paid or to be paid to Mr. A. T. Hunter?
3.	What is the total amount of money paid or to be paid to Mr. A. McGregor?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: The information requested is not as yet available.


VANCOUVER ELEVATORS
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 
Mr. MALCOLM:: 1.	No physical connection exists between No. 1 government elevator at Vancouver and the Spillers' terminal elevator for the purpose of transferring grain from one elevator to the other.
2.	On the advice of the board's chief weigh-master, the board approved of a tunnel being built through Spillers' elevator work-house to enable grain to be shipped from No. 1 elevator to No. 1 jetty at the east side of the Spillers' elevator. While grain can be shipped on the belt through this tunnel, it is impossible to load any of that grain into Spillers' elevator (which is now being operated by the Pacific Terminal Grain Co., Ltd). Grain can also be shipped through this tunnel on another belt from the Spillers' elevator to boats at No. 1 jetty, and consequently, the board does not consider the facilities provided for these two elevators as being a physical connection for the purpose of allowing one elevator to transfer grain to another. This tunnel was built only for the purpose of facilitating despatch in loading without the necessity of moving vessels from one side of the pier to the other.


SASKATCHEWAN JUDICIAL DISTRICTS
Mr. CARMICHAEL:: 1.	How many judicial districts are there in the province of Saskatchewan, and what are the names of these districts?
2.	How many district court judges are there in the province of Saskatchewan, and what are their respective names, salaries, and expenses?
3.	What are the names of the judicial districts, in the province of Saskatchewan, without a resident district court judge, and what is the name of the judge who has charge of each of these districts, and the extra salary and expenses allowed, if any?
4.	How many King's bench judges are there in the province of Saskatchewan, and what are their respective names, salaries, and expenses?
5.	Has	the	government	received	from	the
district court judges of Saskatchewan a request for an increase oi salary and expenses?
6.	If so, what has been done or is likely to be done in the matter?
7.	Has	the	government	received	from	the
King's bench judges of Saskatchewan a request for an increase of salary and expenses?
8.	If so, what has been done or is likely to be done in the matter?
9.	Has the government of Saskatchewan asked for an increase in the number of district court judges in that province?
10.	If so, what has been done or is likely to be done in this matter?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	23: viz: Areola, Assiniboia, Battleford, Cypress, Estevan, Gravelbourg, Humboldt, Kerrobert, Kindersley, Leader, Maple Creek, Melfort, Melville, Moose Jaw, Moosomin,

Prince Albert, Regina, Saskatoon, Swift Current, Weyburn, Wilkie, Wynyard, Yorkton.
2.	18: viz., His Honour A. E. Doak, Prince Albert; A. G. Farrell, Moosomin; E. A. C. McLorg, Saskatoon; Alex. Ross, Yorkton; R. Rimmer, Areola; D. Buckles, N. Battleford;
F.	A. G. Ouseley, Moose Jaw; J. W. Hannan, Regina; W. O. Smyth, Swift Current; J. N. Fish, Weyburn; A. D. Dickson, Humboldt; W. J. Leahy, Kerrobert; C. H. Bell, Wynyard; E. R. Wylie, Estevan; H. M. P. deRoche Melville; S. A. Hutcheson, Shaunavon; H. C Pope, Melfort; A. Gravel, Gravelbourg.
Salaries, $5,000.00 each: expenses, actual travelling expenses and $6.00 per diem for living expenses ($10 00 per diem while attending court at cities).
3.	Assiniboia, in charge of Judge Rimmer; Kindersley, in charge of Judge Buckles; Leader, in charge of Judge Smyth; Maple Creek, in charge of Judge Hutcheson; Wilkie, in charge of Judge Leahy.
No extra salary allowed; living and travelling expenses as in reply to No. 2.
4.	7: viz., Hon. J. T. Brown, Ch. J., salary, $10,000.00; Hon. D. Maclean, salary, $9,000.00; Hon. H. Y. MacDonald, salary, $9,000.00; Hon.
G.	E. Taylor, salary, $9,000.00; Hon. J. F. L. Embury, salary, $9,000.00; Hon. H. V. Bigelow, salary, $9,000.00; Hon. W. E. Knowles, salary, $9,000.00.
Expenses as in reply to No. 2.
5.	A request has been received for an increase of salaries.
6.	The matter is under consideration.
7.	No.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	No.
10.	Answered by No. 9.


SALARIES OP POSTAL CLERKS
Mr. ROBINSON:: 1.	Has the hon. the Postmaster General recommended that the salaries of postal clerks should be increased to a maximum of $1,800?
2.	Has such recommendation been referred to a sub-committee of the cabinet?
3.	Has such sub-committee made a report?
4.	If not, will report be made in time to enable the matter to be dealt with at the present session of parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, this question asks first of all whether the Postmaster General has made a recommendation for certain increases in salary. It also asks whether the recommendation has been referred to a subcommittee of the cabinet, if the subcommittee has made a report, and so on. It is not customary for the proceedings of the cabinet to be divulged, and I think a question of the kind is out of order.

Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the first part of the question is out of order.


Hewitt Bostock: The question will have to be redrafted.


UNCLAIMED BANK BALANCES-DISPOSITION
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What is the amount in the aggregate of unclaimed balances in the chartered banks of the Dominion of Canada as at the 31st December, 1927?
2.	What was the disposition of these funds?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Unclaimed amounts, as reported under section 114 of the Bank Act as of 31st December, 1927, were $2,756,745.83.
2.	They remain with and a liability of the banks until claimed and paid.


SUPERANNUATION FUNDS-POSITION OF DEPENDANTS
Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo-South):: 1.	Are the dependent sisters of a collector of customs who paid into the superannuation fund for a period of thirty-five years, up to the time of his death, entitled to a pension?
2.	If not, can they recover moneys which have been paid into the superannuation fund?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	No.
2.	With reference to the Civil Service Superannuation Act (Cap. 24, R.S. 1927) such dependants would, on the death of the contributor while in the civil service, be within the class of persons to whom the governor in council may grant an amount not exceeding the amount of the contributions made by the contributor.
There are still contributors to the superannuation fund established under Part I of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act, (Cap. 17, R.S. 1906), who did not elect to become contributors under the Civil Service Superannuation Act. There is no provision under the former Act for paying to the dependants of a contributor any portion of his contributions.


RIDEAU CANAL RETAINING WALL
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	How much money was spent on the retaining wall of the Rideau canal at Ottawa from February 1st to March 1st, 1928?
2.	How many men were employed on this work during the same period?
3.	How many of the men so employed were recommended by the two federal members of Ottawa, or their representatives?
4.	How many of the said men were recommended by the federal member for the city of Hull, or his representative?
5. How many of these men were recommended by the federal member of the county of Wright, Quebec, or his representative?
6. How many of these men were recommended by the federal member of the county of Russell, Ontario, or his representative?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	$61,603 57.
2.	499.
3.	271.
4.	98.
5.	31.
6.	99.


CANADIAN NATIONAL TELEGRAPHS
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	What were the annual expenditures of the Canadian National telegraphs for the years 1920 to 1928, both years included?
2.	What were the gross profits of the same in the same years respectively?
3.	What were the net profits of the same in the same years respectively?
4.	Does the government or any department thereof nominate the officials who are from time to time employed by the Canadian National telegraphs?


Charles Avery Dunning: Answers covering the years in question, with the exception of 1928:
1.
1920		$ 2,619,036
1921		 2,701,284
1922		 2,869,500
1923		 3,026,596
1924		 3,166,876
1925		 3,409,890
1926		 3,695,105
1927		 3,950,868
2.
1920		$ 211,008
1921		 315,439
1922		 351,471
1923		 402,202
1924		 406.1S2
1925		 587,468
1926		 665,696
1927		 834.551
3.
1920		$ 102,492 deficit
1921	
26,575	profit1922	
48,523	profit1923	
89,665	profit1924	
82.607	profit1925	
176,061	profit1926	
241,250	profit1927	
403,967	profit4.	No.1492	COMMONS
Position on Order Paper oj Motions


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Thomas Cantley: For a return showing-
1.	A copy of the commission appointing Charles Crockett of New Glasgow a commissioner to investigate charges of political partisanship against government employees in the province of Nova Scotia.
2.	A list of names, addresses, and occupation of employees whose conduct was investigated, together with a copy of the charges made against such employees.
3.	A copy of the evidence taken in each case investigated.
4.	A copy of the report of the commissioner in each case.
5.	A statement showing the salary allowance and travelling expenses paid to Mr. Crockett in connection with the said investigation.


DISMISSAL OF DAN J. MACDONALD
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, petitions and written charges, with the names of those making the charges, relative to the dismissal of Dan. J. MacDonald, postmaster at Fraser's Mills, in the county of Antigonish; and the appointment of his successor, Mrs. Mary Jane MacDonald.


DISMISSAL OF JOHN C. MACADAM
Mr. ERNST:: For a copy of all correspondence, evidence, and all other documents, relating to the dismissal of Mr. John C. MacAdam, from his position as postmaster at Lafleche, Saskatchewan, and the appointment of his successor.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the order: "Public Bills and Orders."
John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker, I rise t>o a point of order. It is with reference to the transference of the notice of motion given by the bon. member for Rellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), discussed at last Wednesday's sitting, from Notices of Motion to Public Bills and Orders. I have always felt since I have been in this house that the rule laid down in regard to Wednesdays has not been observed in practice; at least it seems to me that the practice has not been in harmony with the rule. Now standing order No. 27 reads thus:
If at the hour of six o'clock p.m. on a Wednesday, or at the time of the adjournment of the house, a motion on the notice paper be under consideration, that question shall stand first on the order paper of the following day, next after orders to which a special precedence has been assigned by rule or order of the house.
It seems to me perfectly clear that under that rule the motions we were discussing last

Wednesday evening when the house adjourned should be first in order of discussion as soon as we reached that particular order of business. I will read further from the rules:
229. It is more favourable to the progress of a motion on the order paper that the debate should not be adjourned on Wednesday at six o'clock, because the motion shall then stand on the order paper for the next day as stated in this rule; if debate is adjourned, the motion * goes to the foot of the orders.
Last Wednesday the debate was not formally adjourned. The house simply rose during the discussion. If we read article 230, we see further:
This rule seems to apply to Wednesday only, the words "or at the time of the adjournment of the house" referring to that day, according to the interpretation given by Bourinot, 3rd edition, pp. 336-337. Its purpose is to keep the motion on the order paper though on Wednesday the house may rise without debate being adjourned because at six o'clock on that day the Speaker adjourns the house without question put. On other days, if debate is not adjourned the question is superseded.
It seems to me that under that rule, where the house adjourns without the debate being adjourned, we would naturally take up the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse. There is another reference to the same matter-on page 21, section 63, which again deals with the subject as follows:
Bills occupy a more favourable position than motions, which, if the debate is adjourned on Wednesday at six o'clock, go to the foot of the orders. Consequently, it is more favourable to the progress of a motion on the notice paper that the debate should not be adjourned on Wednesday at six o'clock.
The house will notice that at the foot of article 230, it reads:
On other days, if debate is not adjourned the question is superseded.
Therefore it seems that for those who wish to have their motions given full consideration the proper course is that on Wednesday the debate should not be adjourned, while on other days formal adjournment of the debate would appear to be necessary in order that the motion may occupy its proper place on the order paper. That is the only conclusion I can come to from reading these rules. I raise the point of order, therefore, and hold that the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse should now be the subject of consideration by this house.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon.
gentleman wish to speak to the point of order? The hon. member for Lisgar claims that under this rule the subject of discussion now should be the motion made last Wednesday by the

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Heaps
hon. member for Bellechasse, the debate on which was not adjourned. But standing order 27 reads:
If at the hour of six o'clock p.m. on a Wednesday, or at the time of the adjournment of the house, a motion on the notice paper-
Such as was the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse.
*-be under consideration, that question shall stand first on the order paper of the following day. next after orders to which a special precedence has been assigned by rule or order of the house.
The hon. gentleman will see that on the order paper for to-day the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg is under notices of motions, whilst that of the hon. member for Bellechasse is under public bills and orders. So this is literally the application of the rule, [DOT]which reads:

that question shall stand first on the order paper of the following day, next after orders.
That is, public bills and orders, not notices of motion. I hope I have made myself clear.


John Livingstone Brown: I may be wrong on that
point. I must of course yield to the ruling of the Speaker, but I understood that this referred to the programs that were laid down in chapter 2, business of the house:
Monday (Private member's day).
Tuesday (Government day).
Wednesday (Private member's day).
My understanding was that as soon as we came to notices of motion, for instance, we would take up under that order on Wednesday the particular item that we were dealing with when we were at that order before.


Hewitt Bostock: On Wednesday the
motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse stood first under notices of motion. It was debated and it was continued at six o'clock without any adjournment. Standing order 27 says that in that case it passes automatically to orders, that is to say, public bills and orders, not to notices of motion; and automatically the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg comes first under notices of motion. His motion was second last Wednesday.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, to complete your explanation would you be kind enough to explain how it is that the motion of the hon. member for North Winnipeg is under notices of motion at all and not under public bills and orders like that of the hon. member for Bellechasse?


Hewitt Bostock: It did not come up on a Wednesday.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I suppose the reason why I
continue to-night is because my motion came up on a Thursday?


Hewitt Bostock: Exactly.



UNEMPLOYMENT, SICKNESS AND INVALIDITY INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from February 16, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Heaps:
That, in the opinion of this house, the committee on industrial and international relations be authorized to investigate and report on insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, the motion which is before us this evening is one that was before the house last year, and on that occasion I was pleased with the favourable reception the motion received from members on both sides of the house. Most of the members on the Liberal side were favourable to it, and I was also pleased to see that the hon. gentleman who now occupies the position of leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) spoke in favour of the principles underlying my resolution.
It is rather difficult for any member, or indeed anyone else, to obtain exact data pertaining to the amount of unemployment throughout the Dominion. The Dominion government publish no figures which give anyone a reliable guide as to how much unemployment there really is. In 1926 certain persons endeavoured to make a calculation and they arrived at the conclusion that in the month of December of that year approximately 75,000 people were out of work in the Dominion. This is about the only data that is of value for any one to base an opinion on. The Dominion employment offices throughout Canada have no figures of any value in regard to unemployment.
It has been argued by hon. members as well as by others outside of this house that the question of unemployment is one that should be left entirely to the provinces and the municipalities. I do not agree with that particular viewpoint. I believe unemployment is a problem that ought to be faced by the Dominion government. In this house we deal with and pass legislation that has a direct bearing upon this all-important question. We deal with tariffs, immigration matters, trade treaties, foreign policies, banking laws, and all these I claim affects the volume of employment or unemployment in this country. In our particular legislation that applies to labour, I claim there ought to be some uniformity of action as well as uniformity of
1494	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Heaps
legislation. If we allowed the provinces to deal with the problem of insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity, I presume we would have the same conditions as we have in regard to workmen's compensations acts, mothers' allowances, and so on. We have the spectacle at the present time of a woman living in the province of Quebec, in the city of Hull, let us say, coming across to Ontario and living in Ottawa in order to benefit by certain legislation passed by the Ontario government which is not in effect in the province of Quebec. That merely goes to show the necessity for having uniform legislation in all parts of Canada.
For about four weeks, during the course of the budget debate, hon. gentlemen were discussing the question of unemployment as well as the volume of employment in the Dominion of Canada, and after that debate I do not think that anyone will claim that there is no large volume of unemployment. While hon. gentlemen of the Conservative party claimed that there was a large unemployment problem in Canada, hon. gentlemen of the Liberal party claimed that Canada was in the most prosperous condition since confederation. On the Liberal side they could see nothing but prosperity; on the Conservative side they could see almost nothing but unemployment. While the two viewpoints may appear to be contradictory, I claim that in both there is an element of truth. I claim that we have a large unemployment problem to deal with, and that at the same time there is a good deal of prosperity in this Dominion. What is the cause of this seeming contradiction?
In the year 1917 we had 120,695 more people employed in industry than we had in the year 1924, yet the volume of production was actually greater in 1924 than in 1917. At the same time, in that same period of eight years from 1917 to 1924 inclusive, we had an increased efficiency in individual production of 28 per cent. Taking the year 1910, as compared with the year 1927, we find this remarkable fact:	In 1927, which was a record
year so far as employment was concerned, about 20 per cent more people were employed in industry than in 1910, but during that same period production had increased almost three times.


Mr. WHITE (London):: Are the hon.
gentleman's figures based on the value of production or on units of production?


Abraham Albert Heaps: The volume of production.


John Franklin White: Units of production, or the value in dollars and cents?


Abraham Albert Heaps: On the volume as given
by the Bureau of Statistics. You might call that units, if you wish, but I believe the Bureau of Statistics calls it the volume of production. During that period from 1910 to 1927 the production increased almost three times, whereas the number of people employed in industry increased about 20 per cent. In these figures I think you will find one of the main reasons for the unemployment at present existing in the Dominion. We in the Labour movement have no objection to the employment of improved machinery for productive purposes, but what we do object to is that this improved machinery, which ought to bring greater happiness and contentment to the people, does not have that effect. The more labour-saving devices that are introduced into the factories and the greater the volume of production, the greater ought to be the happiness of the people, but what we find is that labour is being displaced, and a greater amount of poverty prevails in the Dominion. At the same time we find on the other hand a greater amount of prosperity. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) said at the time he introduced his budget, the financiers and industrialists in this country claim that prosperity was never greater in Canada than it is at the present time. That was true so far as the financiers and industrialists were concerned; they were really prosperous, but the reason for their prosperity was quite obvious.
If you take the latest figures published by the Bureau of Statistics as to the amount of wages paid to labour, you will find that the amount paid in the year 1924 was approximately the same as in 1917, or to put it in another way, the whole of the benefit of that increased efficiency of the workers in industry went to the industrialists or financiers and practically none of it to the employee; in fact, he is so much the worse off, because he is receiving to-day less for that which he himself produces.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman's
time is up.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would like to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 37, which deals with the forty-minute rule, and I would ask you to give a literal interpretation of that rule. I think you will find something in that rule to the effect that a member shall speak "for forty minutes at any time".


Hewitt Bostock: I do not suppose the hon. gentleman is serious in raising that point.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will give you my reasons, Sir, if you will allow me to do so.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Neill


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think you ruled upon one occasion in regard to the forty-minute rule that you would allow a speaker the time that was taken up by interruptions. Upon another occasion you stated that you would have to take the rule as it was, and that no time would be allowed for interruptions. I am going to ask you to rule the same way in my case. I claim that under the rule a member i3 allowed to speak for forty minutes from the time he commences to gpeak, and I think that a proper interpretation of rule 37 would give an hon. member a full forty minutes without any interruption whatever. I was interrupted for four weeks.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman commenced to speak on his motion several days ago, and spoke for a certain length of time. The time he took upon that occasion added to the time he took this evening has consumed his forty minutes, and I might add that I was very liberal this evening; I did not call time exactly at the hour-I did not exact the pound of flesh from the hon. gentleman. The rule is clear. On any given subject an hon. member has the right to speak for forty minutes and no more, whether he takes his forty minutes at one sitting or divides it into two periods.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will you kindly read the rule, Mr. Speaker? I have not it here.


Hewitt Bostock: 
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: Mr. Speaker, I desire to propose an amendment to the resolution, and before doing so I may say that I have discussed it with the mover of the resolution. I believe he agrees that it will not in any way affect the matters which he has covered, but will rather add to the powers of the committee in connection with the investigations which he suggested. I submit with all due deference to my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill) that the Dominion has something to do with health insurance, at least to the extent that companies which carry on a health insurance business come within the jurisdiction of the Dominion, and it is with the operations of these companies that I propose to deal for a very few moments.
I might add to what the hon. member for Comox-Albemi has said, as to the agitation which exists at present in British Columbia in regard to state health insurance. There has been a very strong demand that something be done in that direction, and meetings of various kinds have been held. I see that the matter was discussed the other day before the Board of Trade Health Bureau in Vancouver by Dr. J. H. MacDermot, whom I believe to be connected with the Vancouver General Hospital. A report of that meeting appears in the Vancouver Daily Province under date of Tuesday, March 8, and from this report it appears that Dr. MacDermot advocated state health insurance and also that, according to his statement, a great many of the medical men of Vancouver favour that plan. He went into details, Which I do not propose to do; suffice it to say that Dr.

Unemployment Insurance-Mr. McQuarrie
MacDermott thought there should be state insurance along the lines of the workmen's compensation scheme whereby contributions should be made and medical service provided for the men who made those contributions: there should be medical assistance for their families, not only in case of sickness but also in the prevention of illness, and the head of the family should receive compensation. This plan was unanimously adopted by the meeting to which I have referred. I might also say that Mr. C. J. Wynn, who is the chairman of the workmen's compensation board of British Columbia, has publicly advocated some similar scheme.
One of the reasons for this agitation in favour of state health insurance is the unfair and arbitrary way in which insurance companies carry on health insurance in this country. Mr. Wynn himself was very badly treated, I believe, and I had a similar experience. I am a firm believer in insurance, and for years have carried almost every kind; I have carried life insurance, fire insurance, accident insurance, health insurance, automobile insurance and burglary insurance.


Alan Webster Neill: Has the hon. gentleman carried political insurance?


William Garland McQuarrie: I have had almost
every kind of insurance, because I believe in it, but I also believe that when I pay my good money for that purpose I should receive protection, and that I should not pay money to any company which is prepared to take that money only so long as it does not suffer a loss. When I find a company which is net prepared to meet a fair loss which it has sustained, then I say it is time something should be done. Now with regard to my own case, as I said, I carried health insurance for years. I had a few small claims, but it was not until last session that I really had a serious illness. I had been carrying a policy in The Employer's Liability Assurance Corporation, supposed to be a very good policy. It is a combination of accident and sickness insurance and covers all diseases or illnesses. It is called a standard disability policy. That policy was taken out by me in July, 1922, and was in renewal of another policy which I had been carrying in the same company for some years. I found that this policy was renewed from year to year as a matter of course.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As long as you were in health.


William Garland McQuarrie: As long as I did not
make any substantial claim against the company. But last year I had a very serious illness towards the end of the session. It arose 56103-96
to a certain extent in an accidental way, and the original illness that I had was not a serious one at all. I had to submit to a minor nasal operation, but resulting from it I got a very serious infection which laid me up for some time. I had to remain here in Ottawa for quite a long time after the session closed. I had two trained nurses at an expense of $37.50 each per week, and I had to take a nurse with me when I went back to the coast. When I returned to my home I was confined to the house for some time; I was not able to return to my office for several months. Now I thought in the first place that I was covered for one nurse up to the extent of $25 a week because when I took out this insurance policy in the first place I was told that it did provide for a nursing allowance of $25 a week. But the policy itself is misleading in this way: The ordinary individual having been told that much and having received the insurance policy would conclude that he was entitled to a nursing allowance. My claim for nursing allowance was refused. When I first took ill my wife sent a notice to the insurance company advising the agent that I was ill and describing the nature of the illness. The first word I received from the company, before I had put in any claim whatever, was a letter, dated July 22nd, 1927, addressed to myself, and reading as follows:
Dear Mr. McQuarrie:
I have just been advised by head office that they do not wish to renew your accident and sickness policy which expires to-day.
I am very sorry that the company has decided to do this, but they give me no reason whatever.
With appreciation of past favours.
Yours very truly,
J. J. Johnston.
That was before I put in my claim even. They sent me this letter on the very day the policy expired; and mark this: in the face of their repeated renewals, without any request from me from time to time previously when I had not made any substantial claim against them. What was the result? The infection that I unfortunately suffered from was such that my illness might possibly recur. When this company refused to renew the policy I was in this position, that it was impossible for me to get any other sickness insurance. As hon. gentlemen know, when an application is made for insurance of this kind one question that is asked is: Has any company ever cancelled a policy of yours or refused renewal thereof? Well, of course, in my case I had to say, " Yes, the Employers' Liability has refused to renew." As a matter of fact, I had not made any re-

1500	COMMONS
Unemployment Insurance-Mr. Deslauriers
quest for renewal, but the company had, in effect, refused to renew. What did that mean? I tried it out and I found that other sickness insurance companies said: No, under those circumstances we do not think we will give you a policy. I started to enquire into this matter and I found that the same thing had happened to a great many people. There are hon. gentlemen in this house who have had similar experiences, and I suppose there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of people in this country who have been treated the same way that I have been treated. The policy of the sickness insurance companies seems to be that they will take your money if you don't get sick but if you do contract a serious illness they will do one of two things: They will eliminate the disease from which you have suffered or they will refuse to renew your policy. Of course I must admit the policy is one that is issued from year to year, one on which the premiums are paid for one year and the insurance is only for that period. As a matter of law they have a perfect right to refuse to renew your policy, and possibly it would be unfair to require that insurance companies be compelled to issue a policy which would be renewable from year to year up to the time the insured reached a certain age, up to the age of sixty or sixty-five, which I believe is the uninsurable age. But what I say is that no insurance company should be permitted to decline to renew any policy when the insured is at such a stage of health that he is unable to get insurance from any other company. It is true also that before you obtain your money from an insurance company you must give a receipt in Ml for your claim in respect of this particular disease. What I contend is that every insurance company that is carrying on this business should at least be compelled to carry the insured during the time that he is not in a position, by reason of the disease that he incurred during the existence of the policy, to get insurance from any other company.
I promised you, Mr. Speaker, that I would not take up any time unnecessarily, and I do not intend to do so. I think this is a matter that should be investigated by the same committee which the proposer of this resolution has suggested. I beg to move the following amendment which is seconded by Mr. Dickie:
That the said resolution be amended by adding the following:
"That the said committee be authorized to investigate and report on the operations of companies carrying on sickness and accident insurance business in Canada."
Mr. HERlMAS DESLAURIERS (iSt. Mary) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I first wish to

congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps), for the unceasing interest he takes in the labouring classes and for whom I personally have much sympathy.
This resolution embodies one of the most serious problems which, at the present time, bears the stamp of great importance and actuality; it is perhaps the problem that has been foremost in the minds of people all over the world. Pledges of candidates, at election time, numerous publications on the subject, resolutions, measures introduced in legislatures and continuously changed, amended or cancelled, force us to conclude that this problem which exists everywhere is most complex. Its solution is impossible by academic rules and it can only be solved by each individual's thrift and backed by the good will of each and everyone, conditions without which all practical tests of systems have been failures in the past, and will also be in the future.
In Canada, in every province, the problem of invalidity, if we include old people, exists more or less of necessity, owing to the fact that we took part in the -great European conflict. The result was that a great number of old people saw the staff of their old age disappear in the dash of arms on the battlefields. Many saw their sons return disabled, confined to hospitals, adding to the burden of their advanced age; others although unscathed returned home with a different disposition and undesirable habits. A sad state of affairs which spoiled the future of thousands of families. If there is such a thing as -a national conscience, is i't not 'held to compensate its victims, in the greatest measure possible?
Numerous other causes are responsible for invalidity. First old age, lack of natural gifts, want of foresight, trials of life, accidents, illness, forced unemployment, misfortunes, ill luck, these are as many explanations of God's word: "There will always be poor people as there will always be wealthy people". All nations are endeavouring to remedy this evil, without so far having quite succeeded. They have tried to provide for the lack of thrift, by insurances against fire, illness, old age, unemployment, labour accidents, maternity, as -many things encountered along the path of life and ushering its victims towards poverty, when they have not the means of meeting the payments on their insurance policy or do not avail themselves of the advantages they afford when they are able to do so. Many have benefited by insurances. On ithe other hand, owing to uncontrollable circumstances, a great number are unable to take out an insurance, thereby creating the urgent and unavoidable

Easter Adjournment
problem of invalidity which forces governments to act. The legislation should be rather of a preventive and corrective nature, and not one aiming at remedying the effects as they crop up, but having for its objective the removing of the various causes which create invalidity, and therefore tends to reduce the problem to its very minimum.
All the systems advocated heretofore are alike and only differ from one another by the way they are tested. Workmen's superannuation funds in connection with national banks, associations of employers or mutual assistance, are already in existence. They are maintained by the triple contribution of workmen, employers, and the state, and based on the same principles, proceeding in all cases by compulsory insurance or not-according to the countries where the problem is dealt with-and from birth up to the age of seventy. To-day, notwithstanding numerous trials, numerous theories or systems, the problem always remains unsolved, and we must conclude therefore that the rule of thumb has always presided over mutuality and association.
Thrift was not taught by qualified professors, but by too zealous people more or less shrewd, prophets more or less enlightened, heralds more or less interested, with whom method and precision were entirely wanting.
To obtain that end, it is necessary that chairs be founded to take up the study of this difficult science of providing for one's future-for after all is not thrift the economic hygiene of man? Yet the thing does not exist in any country.
Some countries have tried compulsory insurance, for instance Germany, with indefinite results. Others like France advocate optional insurance and obtain insufficient data. Others like Belgium have tried subsidized insurances which gave rise to abuse and injustice. England and Denmark tried the system of supplementary pensions which perhaps would be the system approaching the nearest to the solution of the problem of invalidity if it were supported by the good will of each.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 20, 1928