[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No.147) to amend the Cold Storage Act.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Please state the purport of the Bill.


Mr. FISHER.: It makes a change of only one or two words, and is designed to enable the department to make better provision for the cold storage of fruit.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire from the Prime Minister whether the government has yet come to a determination respecting its acceptance or non-acceptance of the rider or amendment to the Waterways Treaty proposed by the Senate of the United States; and if no decision has yet been arrived at, when we may expect some inti-Mr. MURPHY.
mation as to what the determination of the government will be.


Mr.  A. H.@: The government has come to no conclusion yet whether they will accept the treaty with the amendment that has been made by the Senate in its acceptance thereof. The matter is under consideration. I cannot say at present whether I will be in a position to give an early answer to my hon. friend.



CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

Mr.  A. H.@: CLARKE moved that the order for further consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company be discharged, and that the said Bill be referred back to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders to inquire and report to this House what notice has been given to the public and to the policy-holders concerning said Bill. He said: I think the proper course to pursue would be to refer this Bill back to committee to inquire and report upon what notices have been given. On the 25th of March last, after reference to that committee, a report was made that two of the sections were within the terms of the published notice-the notice did not sufficiently indicate the nature of the powers to be granted under section 2,-and that the last two sections were not mentioned in the notice or in the petition,
, without recommending what course should be taken by the House. Since then, I am informed that these defects have been remedied by further notices.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I did not understand from the promoter of the Bill that a notice has yet been given sufficiently long to enable the Standing Orders Committee to deal with the matter. I presume we will have to wait for at least ten days?


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: I understand that the last notice will be this week. I thought that this might as well be got out of the way, and the committee can regulate its meetings. By the time the committee will be convened, no doubt the last publication will have taken place.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 34) to incorporate the Ontario and Michigan Power Company.-Mr. Conmee.
Mr. LENNOX.: When this Bill was before us on the last occasion the Right Hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), I think, asked to have it stand inasmuch as the Minister of Railways and Canals was not present.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: The Minister of Justice.


Haughton Lennox: Possibly it was the Minister of Justice. I thought it was the Minister of Railways and Canals. I think it would probably facilitate the consideration of this Bill if the government would indicate what attitude they propose to take in reference to it. There is a good deal of feeling in reference to what should be done in this ease and probably if there were a clear statement made as to the attitude which the government would take we could save time.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the amendments printed?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The Bill appears reprinted as amended and reported by the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: Mr. Chairman, I do not know that I am authorized to speak for anybody but myself in reference to this measure; nor do I understand exactly what it is that the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) or any other hon. member of this House would desire from me in regard to this Bill. As far as the question of the power of this parliament to pass a measure of this sort is concerned, I do not suppose any one will have any question. I do not have any idea that in that respect, or upon what may be called the constitutional aspect of this question, I can say anything which will be an enlightenment, or will add in any way to the knowledge, of any hon. member of this House, whether or no that member happens to be of the legal profession or happens to be an ordinary business man. I think our constitution, the British North America Act, is very plain in its intention and in its expression of that intention in regard to the incorporation of companies. What are the provisions of that Act, that we are concerned about? I take it that they are, the distribution of legislative powers in regard to the incorporation of companies, the assigning to the provinces of the power to incorporate companies of a certain class and the assigning to the Domniion of a like power to incorporate companies of another class. I think it is reasonably clear, upon the language of the British North America Act, what the line of demarcation between the two jurisdictions was and is. The incorporation of a company by Act of Parliament, or by the issue of letters patent under the authority of some general Act, is simply the creation, by the proper authority in that behalf, of a new artiflcal, legal being with power to transact business of the character specified in the articles of incorporation. If here was but one legislative authority in Canada no question could
arise. That legislative authority would have the power to create such an artificial, legal being for any and all 'legitimate purposes. But there being throughout Canada a dual legislative authority the British North America Act sought to define the limits of the authority with respect to the incorporation of companies which each of these legislative bodies had. Certain subjects are declared to be within the exclusive legislative power of the Dominion parliament. Certain other subjects are similarly declared to be within the exclusive legislative power of the provinces. No one would imagine-I have not heard any one suggest-that either of these legislative jurisdictions could encroach upon the authority of the other as to the class of subjects in regard to which or for the purposes of which companies may be incorporated. For instance, no one would suggest that the provincial legislature had any power to incorporate a company for the purpose of transacting business with regard to navigation or shipping, or with regard to banking or any of the other subjects which by the 91st section of the British North America Act are assigned to the legislative jurisdiction of parliament. In a similar way exactly no one would suggest that this parliament had power to incorporate a company whose business was limited to the purposes mentioned in the 92nd section as assigned exclusively to the control of the provinces. But the business which a company desires, when it comes into being, to carry on may be of a general character and may not deal exclusively with regard to banking, navigation, shipping, or any other subject which is assigned exclusively to the jurisdiction of the one parliament or the other, and accordingly there is another line of demarcation pointed out under the statute in the most distinct manner as the one that is to govern, and a boundary line laid down over which neither jurisdiction ought to step in the way of encroaching upon the authority of the other. That boundary line is very clearly and distinctly expressed. In the 91st section it is declared that the parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate in regard to subjects which are, by the British North America Act itself, taken out of the jurisdiction of the provinces. We look at section 92 to find, with regard to companies, what those subjects are which are excluded from the jurisdiction of the provinces and we find in article 10, paragraph a, of the 92nd section, a provision that the provinces may legislate with regard to local works and undertakings other than such as are of the following classes. Then are mentioned works and undertakings extending beyond the limits of the province. So that, the constitution has very plainly stated that with regard to any work or undertaking which is to extend beyond the limits

447t>
of the province, not the province, but the Dominion, has the exclusive power to legislate. With regard to the incorporation of companies that is a line of demarcation between the two jurisdictions which is certainly very clearly expressed in the statute and I think ought not to be -difficult to follow. I am sorry to sav that in practice it seems to have been difficult to adhere to that line of demarcation. In the three years during which I have had charge of the Department of Justice it has been an annual occurrence, and I think the same is true of the past, that legislation of different provincial legislatures has required to be noticed in which by special Act some company has been incorporated with the apparent intention that its business operations should not be limited to the province which had incorporated it. It has been and is not an uncommon thing to see in a special Act of a provincial legislature a provision with regard to a company that its head office is to be within the province, but that it is to "have authority to establish offices and agencies at its pleasure outside the limits of the province. It has been a not infrequent thing that a railway company, for instance, would be incorporated by a provincial legislature with power to build its line of railway from some point in the province to a point mentioned upon the boundary line of the province, nothing being said as to what was to happen to the line of railway when it reached the boundary line, the inference plainly to be drawn being that it was to carry that line farther either into an adjoining province or across the international boundary and that the same company, or the same individuals under a separate incorporation elsewhere, were to carry on their works and undertakings beyond the limits of the province. Indeed so far has this practice gone in provincial legislation or in the operation of provincial general Acts that I am aware of at least one case where a company has been incorporated in one of our provinces with the exclusive and sole object of doing business in another province altogether, and I think that in the forty years of confederation the idea has grown up in the minds of business men, possibly in the minds of lawyers as well, and in the minds of our provincial legislatures, that the authority of the provinces, in the matter of incorporating companies, is practically, if not absolutely, co-equal with the authority of the Dominion parliament, and that a company once incorporated bv a provincial legislature has the power, if it pleases, to do business at its will the wide world over. Lawyers frequently refer to the principle spoken of as the comity of nations, and it is argued that by the comity of nations, by the good fellowship or the neighbourliness of other jurisdictions, a company once incorporated by any competent jurisdiction Mr. AYLESWORTH.
anywhere in the world may transact its business at pleasure anywhere else on the face of the globe. While I think it of the utmost importance that this parliament should not overstep the limits which in the matter of incorporating companies, as in other matters, have been assigned to it by the British North America Act, it is of at least equal importance to the body politic that the provincial legislatures should not on their part overstep those limits either. But no question of course arises, so far as this measure is concerned, of the character I have been adverting to, where provinces for any reason have seen fit to incorporate companies and have conferred upon the companies so incorporated powers apparently to transact business beyond the limits of the province. That is a large question, about which lawyers might differ and it does not arise for consideration here.
The practical question for consideration upon tnis measure is whether or not thi3 parliament ought to exercise the power, which in my humble submission it undoubtedly possesses, to constitute these gentlemen named in the Bill, and others who may associate themselves with them, a new legal being, entitled to do the business which this Bill sets out. This measure, in essence, proposes that a company shall be incorporated which shall have the power, as set out in section 8 of the Bill, to carry on, among other things, the business of manufacturing electricity or electric power, heat and light, and transmitting the same for use in any manner at any place in Canada and the United States. I think it goes without saying that no provincial legislature would have power to incorporate a company with the right to do the business defined in the Bill. I do not think any one would contend that a provincial legislature had that power. If any one does so contend, I can only say that it is entirely contrary to my opinion of what the British North America Act, in plain words, states.
I think that under the British North America Act no provincial legislature has any power to incorporate a company whose works and undertakings are intended to extend beyond the limits of the province. No provincial legislature has the power to incorporate a railway company whose line, is to be laid down in more than one province, nor any railway company or telegraph company or any other company' of like character whose works and undertakings are intended to extend beyond and across the provincial boundary line. The works of this company, as stated on the face of the Bill, are proposed to be carried across the international boundary and into the United States. If that is so, it is from this parliament, and this parliament alone, that such a company can seek and obtain valid incorporation in Canada, and the question reduces itself, I submit, to a simple ques-

tion of the propriety of this parliament taking the action which the supporters of this Bill desire. That is a question of policy in regard to which I do not suppose that my opinion is desired by anybody. 1 think that we ought, in considering a measure of this kind, unless there is some evidence to the contrary, to attribute honesty of intention to those who propose the legislation. If any number of men come to this parliament and declare that they wish to be incorporated for a certain legitimate business purpose, it is perfectly competent for any one who suspects the honesty of the statement which they make as to their business intentions to question that statement and to investigate and to demonstrate if it is possible that the statement is not made in good faith. But unless there is some evidence to the contrary, I think one ordinarily, in common business affairs, takes the statement of intention which any one makes to him in a matter of business as being correct. But, having regard to the stage which this Bill has reached, it would seem to me that this committee ought to consider that any question of the honesty of the intention of the promoters of this Bill had been disposed of by the committee which has considered this measure and reported it to the House. That was the place, when this measure was before the special committee to which it was referred, when inquiry into the bona fides of the applicants for incorporation could have readily been made. I do not know whether that inquiry was made or not, but I have no doubt that this Bill was not reported by the special committee which had it in charge without such questions being there discussed. The necessary inference from the action of the committee in reporting the Bill is that the committee was satisfied that this measure was being put forward in good faith, and that it was the honest intention of the promoters of the Bill to use their power to transmit their product across the international boundary for sale in the United States. Not many years ago there was a precisely similar enterprise at Niagara Falls, a company desiring incorporation for the purpose' of manufacturing electric power upon Canadian soil, but with the intention to export that power to the United States to sell it to United States consumers. That company obtained its incorporation at the hands of this parliament; that company is doing business to-day under that incorporation; and the validity of that incorporation has been authoritatively passed upon by our Supreme Court in the course of litigation, declaring that this parliament had undoubted power to give the incorporation which that company obtained. That decision of the Supreme Court would undoubtedly settle any question, if there were such a question, of the power of this parliament to pass the Bill
now under consideration; and giving credit as I do to the promoters of this Bill for honesty of intention, in stating that the powers which they wish and which they consider to be of vital consequence to their enterprise, should go the length of authorizing them to transmit their electric energy across the line into the United States, and that they should have power to construct and operate lines of telegraph and telephone along with their lines for the transmission of electric energy beyond the limits of the province, it seems to me that all questions fall to the ground as ito whether or not this parliament has the power to pass the Bill which it is desired to enact, and as to whether or not this parliament is the proper place to which the promoters of this measure ought to come. With regard to the special provisions of the Bill, no doubt other considerations arise. I do not suppose at this stage of the discussion it is necessary or would be appropriate for me to go into the details of the measure. As to those details, opinions may differ. This House in its wisdom may not see fit, even though the Bill itself is passed, to grant the company all the powers which it asks here. That is a question simply of policy, upon which every member of the committee will make up his own mind and vote according to his views. I might mention one feature of the Bill which stares one in the face the moment he looks at it-the second section, which declares that the works authorized by this Act shall be for the general advantage of Canada. That is a declaration which no other body than this parliament has power to pronounce. It is a declaration which probably we all think has in the past been too freely made, a declaration which it would be well in the general interests of Canada should not be made unless clear reason was shown for it in any individual case. I must say, so far as my individual opinion goes, that I cannot see any reason on the face of this measure, or in considering its provisions and details, for making that declaration in this case. It would not seem to me to be the truth. I cannot see how this undertaking, which appears to be entirely local in its character, so far as its area of operation is concerned, can be truthfully said to be for the general advantage of Canada. It is no doubt for the advantage of all Canada in the same sense that any new undertaking or enterprise, no matter where in the Dominion it may be situate, is for the general advantage. But I cannot see anything special about the undertakings described in this measure which would make those undertakings any more for the general advantage of Canada than the establishment of any manufactory in any town or city between the Atlantic and the Pacific. It, is primarily at any rate

for the advantage of the immediate locality in which it exists, and it can only be, I think, in the most remote degree that these works can be said to be for the general advantage of the whole of Canada. I am not able to see, I must say, any advantage there is to anybody in making the declaration in question. Of course, we all know its effect. Once this parliament sees fit to declare that any undertaking, no matter what its character, is one for the general advantage of Canada, thenceforward this parliament, and this parliament alone, has power to legislate in regard1 to that undertaking. That undoubtedly is the jurisdiction which was conferred upon this parliament of Canada by the imperial parliament in the British North America Act. But the question whether or not in any given case we ought to make that declaration is for us to consider, and in my humble opinion is a question which we ought always to consider with the utmost care. This Bill proposes an undertaking which in my opinion this parliament alone has the power to sanction, because the proposition is to extend its operations beyond the limits of the country. If this parliament agrees in that view and passes this Bill without the declaration that the works are for the general advantage of Canada, the undertaking will remain one in regard to which this parliament and this parliament alone can legislate hereafter.


Mr. SPROULE.: That only applies to onei of the rivers. It does not apply to the Nipigon river, which is not a boundary river.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I have not made my meaning clear to my hon. friend if he thinks my remarks do not apply to the Nipigon river. This Bill proposes, as I have pointed out, to incorporate a company to manufacture electric energy by waterpower on the Pigeon river and on the Nipigon river, and the electric energy so manufactured, no matter whether on the Nipigon or on the Pigeon, this Bill proposes that the company shall have the power to transmit and sell for use at any place in the United States. There is no distinction, on the face of the Bill, between the power to be manufactured by the water of Pigeon river and that which is to be manufactured by the water of the Nipigon river. I speak without knowledge but my supposition is that the company do not intend to distinguish at all, in their operation, between the power manufactured at the one place and that manufactured at the other. The Nipigon is some 60 miles to the eastward of the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William, the Pigeon river is some 40 or 50 miles on the other side, and my supposition was that the corporators named in this Bill intend to manufacture electric power on Mr. AYLESWORTH.
both these rivers to supply any market there might be in Port Arthur and Fort William, which lie between, and to export the surplus power across the Pigeon river into the state of Minnesota or from the Nipigon river, through Lake Superior, across the international boundary, and to the discontinued mines of Isle Royale. _ I have seen it stated that one of the principal markets this company expects to obtain for its electric power is the copper mines on Isle Royale, now shut down, and that that market would probably be of equal value to them with the home consumption in Canada. At all events that is the proposition on the face of the Bill, and the observations I have made apply as much to the water-power of the Nipigon as to that of the Pigeon river. I cannot understand how water-power could be utilized on the Pigeon river otherwise than by the construction of a dam across that river, which would have one end necessarily on United States' soil, and this parliament alone would have the power to incorporate a company for that purpose.
The question here resolves itself simply into this. You have a body of gentlemen before you who say: 'We have the financial means necessary to carry on this undertaking, we ask power to carry it on, and we ask power to transmit our product by wire laid across the international boundary, whether across the boundary between Ontario and Minnesota or between Ontario and Isle Royale'. In either case that is something with regard to which the Dominion parliament has already acted and in regard to which no local legislature has the power to act, and in regard to which unless we are satisfied-and I have not been able to satisfy myself-that these promoters are not honest in stating their intentions, it seems to me this parliament alone has the power and ought to act.
As respects the details of the Bill, apart from the actual incorporation of the cpm-pany, that is entirely another question. Powers may be asked incidentally which this House may not see fit to grant. As regards the declaration that these works are for the general advantage of Canada, I cannot see any benefit it will be to the promoters to have these words included, and as that declaration has in the past been far too freely granted, my view would be against including it in this Bill.


Mr. BOYCE.: I have sent a question over to the hon. minister. Would he kindly answer it ?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) asks me if in my opinion the fact that this Bill empowers the company to sell its products beyond the boundaries of the province

gives this parliament exclusive jurisdiction over it. If I am to answer that question exactly as it is put, I would say yes. At the same time it is a legal question by no means free from doubt and one which has been recently under consideration, indirectly rather than directly, by the Supreme court. There was a division of opinion on the point among the judges of that court, and substantially an equal division, so that we shall require no doubt the views of the judicial committee of the Privy Council before that point can be said to be settled. But in my opinion the British North America Act by the words 'extending beyond the limits of the province' intended that any company incorporated for the express purpose of transmitting its products into a foreign country should be incorporated by this Dominion parliament alone.	_


William Sora Middlebro: While personally I do not like to disagree with the hon. the Minister of Justice, at the same time I am forced to an opposite conclusion on the point last referred to. He says that the only reason why jurisdiction is given this parliament is because this company is given by this Bill power to export its products. It occurs to me that this parliament has no jurisdiction to authorize the construction of any work in a foreign country, so that no matter what we do here to-day our authority only extends to the boundary line. In that respect, therefore, the operation of the company will be exclusively confined to the province of Ontario. Let me point to a case on this very point, in which a company in the province of New Brunswick was proposing to build a railway 'in that province and also to carry on its operations into the State of Maine. It was held that the fact that the legislature of a foreign country had authorized the construction of a line of railway in that country for the purpose of connecting with the provincial railway does not in any way affect the authority of the provincial legislature to legislate with respect to the railway within the boundary of the province. (European and North American Railway Company vs. Thomas, 2 Cartwright, page 439). The point in that case is that, notwithstanding that the railway company in the province of New Brunswick applied for and obtained a charter from the provincial legislature for the purpose of constructing a railway which was to extend not only through a part of the province but into the State of Maine, it w$.s held that the local legislature of the province of New Brunswick had exclusive jurisdiction to pass that charter, I submit that, this being the case, the mere fact that a company, wholly local in its character, is going to export some of its products into a foreign country is no
justification for our assuming jurisdiction. We might as well say that because a sawmill company in the province of Ontario is going to export some of its product to the United States and because that this fact is stated in the Bill, the charter is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament and the province has no legislative authority with respect to it. We have a very striking precedent, the incorporation of the Niagara Power Company under the provincial law. I understand that, subsequently to their incorporation by the province, the company came to this parliament, believing that if they had their charter ratified by this parliament it would be more within the law. But I am told that when they came here their application was refused and they are operating to-day under a provincial charter and carrying on their affairs as effectively as if incorporated by this parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Notwithstanding that it is a boundary stream.


William Sora Middlebro: Notwithstanding that there is no doubt whatever about the Niagara river being a boundary stream. But I am glad to hear the Minister of Justice say that the mere fact that either one of these is an international stream does not affect the right of this parliament to grant this charter. I understand that the Pigeon river is partly an international river, but so far as the Nipigon river is concerned, it is wholly within the bounds of Ontario. Even as to the Pigeon river, one-half its bed belongs to the province.


Mr. BURRELL.: The member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) says that the Nipigon is an international river.


William Sora Middlebro: I take issue with him on that point; I believe that the Nipigon is not at all an international stream, and the Pigeon river is only partly international. But, one-half the bed of the Pigeon river belongs to the province of Ontaiio, and, that being the case, the province certainly has the power to grant incorporation to a company such as this. This company applied for incorporation in 1906 under the name of the Port Arthur Power and Development Company. This was a purely local name. I understand that it did not purpose exporting to the United States.


Mr. CONMEE.: I desire to correct the hon. member Mr. Middlebro). If he looks at the Bill of that year, referred to, he will find the same declaration for exportation as in this.


William Sora Middlebro: I observe that the name is a purely local name-the Port Arthur Power and Development Company. But that Bill was thrown out. The mat-

ter came up again in 1908 in its present form. I understand that that Bill was introduced m the Senate and thrown out by the Senate Committee, and now we have the Bill before this House. As the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) has said, this is a question of expediency as well as a question of power. I think the time has come when we should be very careful in disposing of our national assets. We have arrived at a time when we think these assets of such importance that we have established an international commission to care for them. The object of the North American Conservation Commission is stated in its declaration of principles as follows:
We recognize the mutual interests of the nations which occupy the continent of North America, and_ the dependence of the welfare of each upon its natural resources. We agree that the _ conservation of these resources is mdispensible for the continued prosperity of each nation. . . We agree that those resources which are necessaries of life should be regarded as public utilities, that their ownership entails specific duties to the public, and that as far as possible effective measures should be adopted to guard against monopoly.
One thing seems to me certain-that the incorporation of this company is not pro bono publico. If it is incorporated, it is not, as the Minister of Justice has said, for the general advantage of Canada. We have in Ontario a public utilities commission known as the Hydro-Electric Commission, which was expressly constituted for the purpose of taking charge of the great public assets of the province of Ontario, such as are covered by this Bill. These are public assets, and it will not be many years before they are required by the province as motive power for our manufacturers. Our fuel must be depleted, but the ' white coal ' will go on-men may come and men may go, but this, we hope, will go on for ever. It is the most useful and economical kind of power, and it behooves us to pause long before we grant incorporation to such a company, not for the public good but for the purpose of enriching a few private gentlemen.
If we look at the public press, we find everywhere _ throughout the country that they are alive to this matter. I have here an editorial of the Toronto ' Globe,'-and no person will say that that journal is unfriendly to the present administration. This is from April 1, 1909.
Mr. Conmee's Little Bill.
It is disappointing, to say the least, that thirty members of the party which is identi-npd with the maintenance of the provincial rights should be found voting for the Bill of the Ontario and Michigan Power Company. The province was represented bv counsel in opposition to granting a charter,"but his protests were of no avail, as the committee seems to have been lobbied on a party basis, and, I Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
with the exception of Mr. Black, the Liberal member for Hants, the committee was divided on strictly party lines. Mr. Black is to be honoured for his vote.
As Mr. Calvert said, it was more a question of policy than of jurisdiction, and, as policy strongly calls for leaving provincial matters alone, it is a pity he did not vote that way. The contention that the Nipigon river is an international stream, as Mr. Blackstock says, affronts common sense. Even if it were, it is surely not so distinctly an international stream as the Niagara river, over whose power rights the Ontario government has exercised complete jurisdiction.
The Liberal members in parliament are not sent there to get in behind Mr. Conmee's Bill or to promote his commercial ventures, if he has any. We do not pretend to settle the constitutional or legal question raised. All that we


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think it is against the rules of order to quote from any newspaper in this House reflecting upon the action of members of parliament in parliament. I think it is not in order for the hon. member (Mr. Middlebro) to quote from a newspaper in that respect?


William Sora Middlebro: Does the Chairman say that this is against rule 19 and is offensive?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: No, but there is a distinct rule of the House, to be found in Bourinot and May, that newspaper articles reflecting upon the action of members of the House in the House may not be read.


William Sora Middlebro: I am just reading the comments in the public press. If you, Mr. Chairman, rule that editorial articles to be found in the ' Globe ' are offensive and unfit to be read to the Liberal members of the House


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have risen to order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Middlebro) will please take his seat. It is not in order to comment in any way on the ruling of the Speaker or of the Chairman; his ruling must be accepted, unless there is an appeal against it to the House.
I think it proper to say as well that, inasmuch as I would refuse to allow my decision to be discussed, I think approbation or .disapprobation of it by applause or otherwise, is also out of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it out of order, on any question that comes up from time to time in this House, to read the comments of the press, because that would apply to the budget speech, to protection or to anything else which is constantly referred to in the press?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the circumstance arises I will endeavour to rule at the moment, but I am not supposed to answer hypothetical questions.


William Sora Middlebro: I bow to your ruling. Now, a word as to what the Minister ol Justice said with reference to provincial powers. As I understand the British North America Act, all powers which previously belonged to the provinces, and which have not by the express terms of the British North America Act been conveyed from the provinces to the Dominion, still remain within the exclusive jursdiction of the provinces; so unless there is something in the British North America Act which expressly takes away the former power of the provincial legislature to incorporate such a company as this, then it certainly remains within the exclusive power of the provincial legislature. The section to which the Minister of Justice refers is subsection 10 of section 92. Among the exclusive powers of provincial legislatures are:
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.
Now, unless it can be said that a company that simply exports its product, extends its operations beyond the limits of the province, then it does not come within that limitation. My contention is that the mere fact that this Bill proposes to give a company power to export its product does not make it of an international character, therefore it comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of this parliament. Now, the Minister of Justice has said that this company is entirely local in its operations, and, therefore, he does not think it would be correct to say that this company is for the general advantage of Canada. Now, if that is so, it seems to me it must be a local undertaking; if it is not for the general advantage of Canada it must be a local undertaking, and if it is a local undertaking, then it is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. Apart from the question of the legality of the Bill, I say that as a matter of policy it would be extremely inadvisable to pass it, especially in view of the fact that we are now taking action for the purpose of conserving our national resources, and in view of the fact that we have established in the past few years in the province of Ontario a hydTO-electric commission for the very purpose of developing the powers which this Bill proposes to place in the hands of private parties.


James Conmee: But apart from that consideration, the works of the company, the cable and transmission line and so forth, must be constructed, maintained and connected with other lines either in the other provinces or in the United States. When the Bill was before the committee maps were placed upon the wall showing the position of these two rivers and the position occupied by Isle Royale, which is a portion of the United States. Isle Royale is 40 or 50 miles east of Port Arthur and Fort William. It is directly opposite the mouth of the Nipigon river. This island is 45 or 50 miles in length. It is also practically opposite the mouth of the Pigeon river although these rivers are a long distance apart; so that the transmission lines naturally converge upon that island. These maps were produced and I think the committee was fully satisfied of the bona tides of the proposed company in that regard.
As some suspicion has been cast upon the action of this company I wish to call to the attention of the House who the parties are who are asking for this legislation. There is Mr. Herman Finger, of Port Arthur. Mr. Finger is a well-known lumberman and a man of considerable wealth; another is Mr. .7. C. Hunter. Mr. Hunter is a banker. He is the gentleman who came into our country and established the furnaces that are now at Port Arthur. Another is Mr. D. 0. Cameron, of Winnipeg, a large lumberman and a wealthy man. Another is Mr. J. D. McArthur, a well-known contractor in this country, a man who was able to put up $4,000,000 of security that he would carry out his contracts. These certainly are not men of straw. They are not men who should be treated as some hon. gentlemen opposite would desire to treat them, and they are not men against whom insinuations can be made with regard to this undertaking.
I think that the hon. member was a little unfortunate in his statement about the British North America Act. I followed very closely the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) and I think the force of his argument in regard to the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament must have been apparent to everyone who gave attention to it. But, I claim that this legislation is within the competence of the Dominion parliament upon grounds other than those stated by the Minister of Justice. There is no other legislative body in this Dominion that can pass this legislation. I think it will be acknowledged by all those who have paid any attention to the subject that for a great many years, parliaments, led by both political parties, have held practically the same view as regards navigable waters. They have been regarded as being under the Mr. CQNMEE.
legislative control of the Dominion. Indeed, some of the Ministers of Justice went very much farther.	Sir John
Thompson held that they were the absolute property of the Dominion. An Act for the building of a bridge across the Red river at Winnipeg passed by the legislature of Manitoba, was disallowed upon the report of Sir John Macdonald, acting Minister of Justice, because it was proposed to be constructed across navigable waters. A similar Act to provide for the building of a bridge across the Assiniboine river was vetoed upon the report of Mr. Blake when he was Minister of Justice. I could go on and show the House what the various Ministers of Justice have held in the past. I might refer the committee to the opinion expressed by Sir Oliver Mowat on this ques-tien. Some gentleman has seen fit to assert that there is a question of provincial rights involved in this Bill. I do not think so. There can be no question of provincial rights unless this legislature goes outside of its sphere of action and enters into that of a provincial legislature. If this Bill proposed any step of that character the question of provincial rights might arise. Touching on the question of the navigability of the rivers, my argument is that, because these rivers are navigable, quite apart from the question of their international character, if they have any, this parliament, and this parliament alone, can create this, company and give it the legal authority to carry out the undertaking embodied in this Bill. I will refer the committee to the decision of the Privy Council and to the answers which it made to a series of questions submitted with regard to a similar matter. I may say that in this submission the provinces, not only of Ontario and Quebec, but the other provinces, joined with the Dominion. One of the questions submitted was this:
Is the Act of the Dominion parliament, revised statutes of Canada, chapter 92, entitled ' an Act respecting certain works constructed in or over navigable waters ' an Act which the Dominion parliament had jurisdiction to pass either in whole or in part?
That is very plain language. The Act is very well known to hon. members. It provides that no bridge, no dam, no construction of any character may be placed upon navigable waters or upon foreshores that would affect such waters except with the aproval and consent of this parliament. If the contention of the hon. gentleman who has taken his seat be correct that Act was an evasion of provincial rights. The province it contended owned the entire river in one case and to the centre of the river in the other case. I am not going to split hairs about how much it

owned, or as to whether -it owned, in the case of an international stream, to the centre of the river or not.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does the hon. gentleman concede that the province owns half the bed of an international stream?


James Conmee: No, I do not, and I will give my reasons for that. I am just proceeding to do that. In the very case that I am calling the attention of the committee to, it was held that:
Whatever proprietary rights were vested in the province at the date of the British North America Act, 1867, remained so unless by its express enactment transferred to the Dominion. Such transfer is not to be presumed from the grant of legislative jurisdiction to the Dominion in respect to the subject matters of these proprietary rights.
These are the words of the Privy Council.
I have already stated the question submitted. These words which I have just quoted are the general remarks preceding the reply, and then the reply is in these words:
Held that the Dominion legislature had power to pass the revised statute of Canada, sec. 92, entitled ' An Act respecting certain works constructed in or over navigable waters.'
That Act is now contained in Section 115. According to the Privy Council, the highest court in the realm, that point seems to be definitely settled. I would call the attention of the hon. member for West Algoma, who asked me a question as to whether the provincial government owned the bed of the river or not, to the distinction that is made here between proprietary rights and legislative jurisdiction; these are two different and distinct things.
Their lordships point out that the distinction between the question of the ownership of proprietary rights and the question of legislative jurisdiction are very broad and quite distinct one from the other. Therefore I submit that, by that judgment alone, there can be no doubt that the authority rests with this parliament as having exclusive legislation.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What judgment is the hon. gentleman referring to?


James Conmee: The judgment in the Privy Council appeal cases, 1898, pp. 700 and 701.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is the fisheries case?


James Conmee: The fisheries question was involved in the same judgment, certainly. My contention is that the declaration there is to the effect that in some instances proprietary rights remained in the provinces absolutely, notwithstanding the formation of the Dominion, that in other cases proprietary rights remained 142	!
in the provinces but that, notwithstanding that, the legislative jurisdiction was given to the Dominion in regard of the subject matter of these proprietary rights. I think that is quite clear. I shall read the words again in case the point is not fully understood.
Whatever proprietary rights were vested in the provinces at the date of British North America Act, 1967, remained so unless by its express enactments transferred to the Dominion. Such transfer is not to be presumed from the grant of legislative jurisdiction to tie Dominion in respect of the subject-matter of those proprietary rights.
I think that language is very clear. Then the following words are to be found in their decision:
Held, further, that the Dominion legislature had power to pass the revised statutes of Canada, c. 92, entitled, ' An Act respecting certain Works constructed in or over Navigable Waters.'
I contend that this decision is a declaration that notwithstanding certain proprietary rights may have remained or did remain in the provincial legislature, the Dominion and the Dominion alone had the legislative authority to deal with them. I think that is clearly borne out by some of the decisions of our own courts in the matter. I wish to refer to one or two cases respecting the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada. I would refer to the case of the legislation affecting the rights of the Dominion and the province, the Quiddy River Driving and Boom Company, 3rd Cartwright, 2 and 3.
Mr. Justice Strong in that case at page 297 used the following language:
No one can deny that by subsection 10 of section 91 of the British North America Act, exclusive power to legislate respecting navigation is conferred on the parliament of Canada, and as little is it open to any one to dispute that this power respecting navigation includes the exclusive right to legislate so as to authorize an obstruction in a navigable public river.
That I think is a very plain finding and there are others. The last speaker dealt with some of the power companies. Let me say that a considerable number of power companies have the same powers as are asked for in this Bill. The Hamilton Erie Power Company got their Act in 1895. The Grand Falls Water Power and Boom Company also got theirs in that year and the Erie Ontario Power Company got theirs in 1903. There was an issue in the	courts as to	the
Ontario Niagara Power Company.	The
Parliament of Canada by the Act of 51 Victoria, 1897, chapter 120, incorporated the Canada Power Company. The company was authorized to develop a water-



power on the Welland river, to distribute electric power and to connect its wires with those of companies in the United States. Let me say for the information of the committee that the Welland river is in exactly the same position as the Nipigon river, it is entirely and wholly in the province of Ontario. It is a tributary of the Niagara of course, but it is no more a tributary of a boundary stream than is the Nipigon river, so that these two rivers are on all fours. By subsequent legislation the name was changed to the Ontario Power Company of Niagara Falls, and I think that is the same company to which the hon. gentleman referred, saying it was operating under a provincial charter. I am informed "that none of these companies are operating under provincial charters, that although they obtained provincial charters in the first instance they later came here and got Dominion charters. If they are operating under provincial charters, then from the information which I have been able to obtain they are doing it illegally, and any shareholder or any creditor could set their incorporation aside because if they are operating under such a charter it is an encroachment upon the federal jurisdiction. It not only gives to the company the right to make use of the Welland and Niagara rivers, but it gives them the right to take the waters of Lake Erie, about which there can be no question, for the purposes of their power company. There can be no question about these waters being international, but whether they are international or not they are navigable. If they are operating under such a provincial charter it is only because no one has objected to their doing so.
However, I wish to continue my reference to this particular case. The Act of incorporation did not contain in any enacting clause, a declaration that the works of the company were for the general advantage of Canada, but in the preamble it was stated that it was for the general advantage of Canada that a company should be incorporated for the purposes mentioned. This Act was held intra vires of the Dominion parliament by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Hewson vs. the Ontario Power Company; and, although the judgment is rather long, I would ask the indulgence of the committee while I read it, because I think it deals pretty fully with a similar case:
Mr. Justice Davies in his judgment in that cose (with which Mr. Justice Sedgewiok concurred) said (p. 605):
The chief contention on the part of the appellant was that: the charter of the respondent was null and void as not being within the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament cl Canada and as being a purely local work Mr. CONMEE.
and undertaking which the legislature of Ontario could alone authorize.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario held the charter of the respondent to be intra vires of the Dominion parliament on two grounds: first, that the general recital in the incorporating Act, that it was desirable for the general advantage of Canada that a company should ibe incorporated for the purpose of utilizing the natural water supply of the Niagara and Welland rivers, was a sufficient declaration within section 92, subsection 10 (c) of the British North America Act; and, secondly, that the power given by section 2 cf the company's charter to connect its wires with the wires of any electric or other company in the United States, made the work cne extending beyond the limits of the province and so within section 92, subsection 10 (c).
As at present advised I do not think the general declaration in the preamble of this piivate Act such a declaration as that contemplated by subsection 10 (c) of section 92 of the British North America Act. In my present view of that section I should be inclined to think that with respect to a work or undertaking of a purely provincial kind solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature, and with respect to which parliament was assuming jurisdiction on the sole ground that the undertaking was for the general advantage of Canada or two or more of the provinces, the declaration intended, was an enacting declaration to the effect required by the Imperial Act. Such a declaration is not, I think, one which might be spelled out of the charter granted or inferred merely from its terms or deduced from recitals of the promoters in the preamble, but one substantially enacted by parliament. It is not necessary for me, however, to decide the point now, as I hold the charter valid on other grounds and wish to leave the point open.
The jurisdiction of the legislation of Ontario is limited to the incorporation of companies with provincial objects only, and such legislature could not confer on a company in-ci rporated by them such extensive powers as are conferred on this respondent company.
It is true that the location of the works where ' electric power is to ibe generated is near Niagara Falls and solely within the province.' But the undertaking of the company is not simply to generate power, but to supply such power ' to manufacturers, corporations and persons for use in manufacturing or any other business or purpose.'
Now the subject-matter of the charter is obviously not merely a local one. On the contrary, it is obviously one which contemplates extension over large areas. I do not find in the Act any woi-ds importing or implying a limitation upon these powers as to area. I should read the second section of the Act as giving powers to extend if found necessary or desirable to any part of Canada which was found practicable.
The second section, as I read it, not only gives them general and unlimited powers of supplying electric power to parts of Canada beyond the province where their generating works are to be situate, but expressly autli-

crizes them 'to connect with the wires of any company in the United States.'
Mr. Lafleur felt himself obliged to contend that the local legislature could grant similar powers of connection, and I was disposed at the argument to agree with him. But a closer examination of the clauses of the British North America Act has led me to entertain very grave doubts that this is so. It seems clear to me that the legislature could not grant a local company power to connect its wires with those of a local company in any of the other provinces. If it could, each company would cease to be one of a ' local or private nature ' and become interprovincial and general. How then could the legislature grant power to connect the wires of the company it was creating with those of the companies of a foreign country. The local or private company on such connection taking place would at once cease to be ' local or private ' within the British North America Act and become international.
It was argued that the province has as much right to confer powers beyond its jurisdiction upon the corporations it calls into existence as the Dominion parliament has beyond Canada. In a certain sense that may be true. But there is a difference and a rational one too. Provincial charters are defined by the British North America Act as matters of a local or private nature not ' connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces,' and 'not extending beyond the limits of the province.' Dominion charters are not controlled by any such statutory limitations, and while the exercise of the powers they confer upon a company connecting at the international boundary line with the works of a foreign company may be subject to the municipal law of that country and permitted and controlled by the comity of nations, there is no statutory prohibition in the British North America Act preventing the granting of the power by the Canadian parliament to a company it incorporates to connect with a company of the United States at the boundary line.
It is not necessary, however, for me to decide whether a grant by the legislatures of the province to a company created by it to connect its wires with those of a foreign corporation, at the frontier, would be necessarily beyond its powers or would invalidate the charter altogether or simply in part. That question was not argued excepting incidentally, because the validity of a provincial charter was not an issue on this appeal. Whether there exists a concurrent jurisdiction in the Dominion and the province to confer such a power, I am not called upon now to decide. I do hold the power to exist in the Dominion parliament; and that, because of its exercise with respect to this special corporation and also because of the general extent of the powers granted, the Act of incorporation here m question is legal and valid.
That is a case pretty much on all fours. There are a number of other judicial findings to which I could refer, but I think sufficient has been said to show that, quite apart from the question dealt with by the Minister of Justice the legislation asked for by this company should be granted. I was somewhat surprised at some of the remarks 142|
of the hon. Minister of Justice; if he has suspicions they are not well founded. The declaration in this Bill that it is for the general advantage of Canada is an honest one. What works are covered by it, which are not of that character ? If this company goes on with its undertaking, that will mean the investment of several million dollars in the establishment of hydraulic works.


Mr. J. D. REID.: To supply power to the United States.


James Conmee: If the hon. gentleman were to treat this Bill fairly, he would not make that remark. The Bill provides that the company must retain half of its power for consumption in Canada. In what other Bill is there that restriction ?


John Dowsley Reid: Why should not all the power be kept for Canada ?


James Conmee: When these other Bills were going through why did my hon. friend not insist on their containing a provision of that kind? He must have been asleep.


John Dowsley Reid: What Bill does the hon. gentleman mean ?


James Conmee: I have reference to a Bill regarding power on the Welland Tiver. There is no provision that they shall not export their poweT.


John Dowsley Reid: It is an international stream.


James Conmee: Not at all. It is entirely within the province of Ontario, and not more an international stream than is the Nipigon. Neither is the Welland river an international stream in the sense my hon. friend means. The company will have to establish manufactories to use that power and employ large numbers of men. Take the case of the water-power at Sault Ste. Marie. There was just about as much suspicion and nonsense with regard to giving that charter and developing that power as there is in this case. We had the same difficulty then as now and the same suspicion. But that company has done good work. It has established great works there. The customs revenue collected there has reached nearly half a million dollars a year in consequence of its establishment. Take the Shawinigan company in the province of Quebec. At that place formerly there was no revenue at all, but since that company has been established, it now gives a revenue to the customs of $100,000 per annum. Take all works of that character and you will find they are a source, of great public revenue. Besides you do not get from the revenue returns in the immediate locality of the works, anything like the general advantage to the country which such works bring about. The labour employed sends its wages away, and revenue is derived from the amount of business done in rei /

turn for these wages at hundreds of places throughout the country. In this case the company propose to manufacture pulp, paper and electric appliances. These are articles of commerce which serve the wants of the people throughout the entire country. I would ask bon. gentlemen to point out what other class of work is of greater general advantage than establishments of this kind, which develop the resources of nature now going to waste. I want to dwell on that subject just a little. I think that the best declaration on that point was made in the language which I propose to quote: I am reading from a work published by Mr. Farnham, on water and water-rights, edition 1904, volume 1, page 29:
The gifts of nature are for the benefit of mankind, and no aggregation of men can assert and exercise such rights and ownership of them as will deprive others, having equal rights, and means of enjoying them, of such enjoyment.
That is about as strong a contention in that regard as can be made. I am a subscriber to the principles enunciated there. There is nothing in this Bill to interfere with the rights of the public, there is nothing in it to take from the use of the public any advantage these water-powers can give, I had something at stake in presuming to introduce this measure. I have no more interest in it than simply as being the one who introduced it. I am free to say that I believe it will aid in the development of the section of the country from which I come. I believe the measure will be for my advantage in that respect, but I had a good deal of trouble with some of the promoters to get them to consent to clause 14 of the Bill. I submit that no Bill which has passed through this House or the legislature of Ontario within the last 20 years, contains as many safeguards for the people's rights. Let me read section 14:
In case of any dispute or difference as to the price to be charged for power or electrical or other energy, for any of the purposes in this Act mentioned, in use or to be provided for use upon the Canadian side of the international boundary, or as to the methods of distribution thereof, or as to the time within which or as to the quantity to be furnished, or the conditions upon which it shall be furnished for use, such dispute or difference shall be settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada on the application of any user of or applicant for power, electrical or other energy produced by the company, or upon the application of the company.


Haughton Lennox: May I ask a question, so that we may follow exactly the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) as he goes along-was this clause in the Bill of last year?


James Conmee: I do not think it was in quite the same words.


James Conmee: 


Haughton Lennox: But substantially the
same thing?
Mr. CONMEEl Well, I think, 'pretty much. I would not say it was in the same words. But I want to point out to the committee how far-reaching that is. The language covers every dispute that can arise in the interests of the people, not only in the interests of the people in that particular district, but the people of Canada so far as they may be affected by the action of this power. But, further, this parliament created the Board of Railway Commissioners, it is a high court for the purpose of dealing with the rights of the people as affected by corporations. And parliament never, in my judgment, passed a better Act for the benefit of the general public than when they established that court. Now, parliament has control of that court, so that if this Bill passes, the people of Canada, the people of the district, the government of Canada, the representatives of the people on the floor of this Chamber, have just as much control and just as effective control over that water-power and the works that are established and the development that takes place there, as they have if the Bill does not pass or if any other power in this land passes it.
Some hon. members opposite would probably tell me that there is in Ontario a Hydro-Electric Commission for the purpose of dealing with water-power. Giving all due credit to the government that established that commission, recognizing that their purpose was to preserve, as far as they could, the benefits of their water-powers to the people of the province by preventing extravagant charges for water-power, and that through the machinery and instrumentality of this commission they are going to control these prices, I am not going to debate that question further than to point out that they have been a good while at it, and they have not reduced any prices yet.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. member has been a good while at this Bill.


James Conmee: Yes, I have. And as they are not going to give up their commission, I am not going to give up my Bill either. But what is the provision? The people of that portion of the province within a certain distance from Niagara, within a comparatively short distance of the source of the electric energy-for electrical energy can be transmitted commercially for only a short distance-may receive all the benefits we are told about, but, if the highest hopes of the legislature can be realized they can only reach a very small area of the province.


Mr. BLAIN.: Will not that be a very good thing for the province?


James Conmee: The hon. member (Mr. Blain) asks if that will not be a good thing

for the province all over? I say no. I am not arguing that the time may not come when this will benefit all parts of the province, but that will not come while the hon. member and I are on earth-what may happen in the great future I know not. This Hydro-Electric Commission is only a board composed of so many gentlemen. Are they more capable, are they of a higher class, are they better qualified, are they more zealous for the public interest generally, or more ready to protect the rights of every man than would be the Board of Railway Commissioners? I do not think they are. Giving them all due credit, I do not think there is any possibility of that board protecting the public interest more than it is protected under this Bill.
Let me refer to another matter in this connection. Has this Hydro-Electric Commission protected the public interest in the past? We can judge it because it exists and has acted. Take the case of the Kam-inistiquia power: that company developed power on the river within 20 miles of the citv of Fort William. The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) read from the columns of the ' Globe.' If he will look at the back numbers of the ' Globe,' and see what it has had to say about the Kaminis-tiquia power


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) does not take recent copies of the ' Globe '?


James Conmee: I do. But I deny that a gentleman sitting behind a desk in the editorial office of the ' Globe ' or any other paper has better qualifications of moulding the public policy of this country or has better opinions in regard to the great questions of public interest than the men whom the people have chosen to represent them in this House. That is my position with regard to the ' Globe ' or any other newspaper. But I tell my hon. friend that if he will go back far enough he will find that the ' Globe ' for months and years-certainly for more than one yeaT-was telling the people of the great power there was in the Kakabeka falls and how it should be conserved for the benefit of the people and how the rates to be charged for power should be controlled by the then government, which was a Liberal government. I have the references here, and I could give them to the House, but time will not permit. When I ceased to be the representative of that section in the local legislature, the power was still in the hands of the government to control these rates, if the provincial legislature could control them. I may say I then had different views from those I hold now. What has happened since that time under the Hydro-Electric Commission? What the previous government had done was to refuse to deed the land except upon condition that the rates should be controlled. But
this government came to the conclusion that they had their Hydro-Electric Commission, and therefore had control. They deeded the land in fee simple, without conditions-and the company is now operated and charging what it pleases; nobody has any control over it; there is no control. In that connection, let me say that there is a question of dealing with a navigable river. Under chapter 115 of the revised statutes no works may be placed upon a navigable river without approval of those works under provisions of that Act. These works on the Kaministi-quia aTe placed there under the Act of the Ontario legislature without any such approval.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: When was the Act passed?


James Conmee: In 1899.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) had charge of the Bill?


James Conmee: I had. That is why I know something about it. But it was renewed in 1903 or 1904 so far as relates to the power of the company to divert the Kaministiquia river. Of course no provincial legislature has the power to authorize the diversion of the water of a navigable stream. But the provincial legislature gave this company power to divert the waters of this river for twenty miles and to cause them to empty not into the river but into Thunder bay. This is the river which forms the second largest harbour in the Dominion. The volume of traffic in the harbour of Fort William, formed by the Kaministiquia river, is next to that of Montreal. But I submit that even under the powers of section 115 there is no authority for the Minister of Public Works to approve of plans of that nature, they are confined to the building of a wharf, dock and works of that character, or a bridge, or works connecting or necessary therewith, all specifically defined in section 115, none of which contemplate a diversion. Therefore I submit there is no power to ratify works of an entirely different character which are involved in the diversion of a stream. No water-power development can take place without the diversion of the waters of the stream. I think I need not argue the point very long that no provincial legislature could give authority to divert navigable waters from the natural bed of a stream. Now, Sir, some very peculiar legislation has been passed by the provincial legislature, and I want to call attention to it. I have in my hand an Act in regard to the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, passed by the parliament of Canada in 1895. Among other things the Act provides that the company shall not export any of its power to the United States -meaning that half of the power which belongs to Ontario or to Canada-except by

order of the Railway Board of Canada. It also provides that the Railway Board shall have control in fixing the rates to be charged to the municipality of Fort Francis or the township of Mclrving, in which it is situated. It goes on to stipulate in regard to the character of the works, and provides among other things that the company should not in any way obstruct or interfere with the lock at Fort Francis. I may explain that term by saying that a lock was built many years ago at Fort Francis, under the Mackenzie administration. It was nearly completed for the depth of water then thought to be necessary, with the exception of the gates. The Act of this House provides for the protection of the flow of water, and provides that navigation may be obtained both above and below the dams and structures which the company may make, and also in regard to the level to which the water may be raised in the river, or in Rainy lake. Now I want to make a short statement as to what has happened in regard to that Act. I assume that hon. members are not generally aware that the province of Ontario has assumed power to veto Dominion legislation, as appears from an Act which I have in my hand. This is an Act of the Ontario legislature in the following year, 1896. The statute of Canada, 1905, was passed on the petition of the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited. The Ontario Act provides:
And whereas certain provisions thereof as to the supply of power in Canada from the water-power on the Rainy river at or near the town of Fort Francis, are in the interest of the province of Ontario, and whereas notwithstanding the provisions in the said statute contained, it is contended that the company are not bound thereby but are entitled to deal with the said water-power free from the restrictions in respect thereof imposed by the said Act.
That is what I call a veto.


Haughton Lennox: It is the other way, it is carrying out the objects which the legislature had in view.


James Conmee: My hon. friend is entirely wrong about that. It is setting aside all the provisions of the Dominion Act.


Haughton Lennox: Just the opposite!


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: What is the enactment?


James Conmee: The Act goes on to provide for some! of the same provisions that are contained in the Dominion Act.


Haughton Lennox: This is the Ontario Act which supplements the Act of the Dominion parliament.


James Conmee: 


James Conmee: It will be time enough for the hon. gentleman to give an opinion after he has read this Act.


Haughton Lennox: I have read it.


James Conmee: Well, I shall have to ask you to read it again. All I can say is that if you are a lawyer, as I believe you are, and you have read this Act and are going to contend as you do just now, I would be very sorry as a client to employ you.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member will please address the Chair, and not the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox).


James Conmee: Under the provisions of the Dominion Act disputes were to be settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners; under this Act, there is a very different provision:
In case of any dispute as to the price of power or electrical energy in use or to be provided for use upon the Canadian side of the international boundary line, or the methods of distribution thereof, or the time within which, or the condition on which, the same shall be furnished for use, such dispute shall be settled by the Lieutenant Governor in Council on the application of any applicant for power, or of the company or the town of Fort Francis.
That changes the jurisdiction of this parliament. Under the Dominion Act it is provided that a portion of the power, if it was so ordered by the Board of Railway Commissioners, might be exported for use on the American side under such conditions as the board might impose. Now this Act provides in a different way:
No part of the power or electrical energy to be provided for use on the Canadian side of the said boundary line shall be diverted to or used in the United tSates without the order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
Now the Lieutenant Governor, under this statute, takes away from the Board of Railway Commissioners, the power which was given by Dominion statute, and takes to himself to say just what power shall be exported. I want to say to the hon. member that I do not believe the Act is worth the paper it is written on. But, it just goes to show where the question rests. It goes to show that there is a necessity for action on the part of this government with regard to this question. This was an international stream. Why the provincial legislature should have assumed to set aside the Acts of this parliament and to deal with an international and a navigable stream is something that I do not know. It is certainly taking a very extreme course, to say the least about it. But, if hon. gentlemen are questioning the pro-

priety of passing this Act, what have they to say as to the propriety of their friends at Toronto in passing that Act? If these gentleman say, ' You may possibly be invading our rights,' surely they should come here with clean hands. That is a principle of British law and British practice. I will point to only these two Acts, although I could refer to a dozen Acts, in which the same principle was involved. This is a clear case of usurping the authority of the parliament of Canada. Let me give another case in point. Nipigon lake is & large body of water, with about the same coast line as Lake Ontario; yet, the Ontario government have assumed control of it. They have undertaken to forbid anybody to navigate it unless he gets a license from the provincial government. I would like to ask hon. gentlemen where they get any authority for that? If there is anything clear about the British North America Act, if there is anything that is fully established by the statutes of Canada based on that Act, it is that the Dominion has control of navigable waters. Yet, the provincial government assumes to exercise the paramount control over one of the great lakes of the country. Well, I will leave that question for hon. gentlemen to think oveT. Now, what I have to say with regard to this Act, is, that in my humble opinion, it is evidently an Act that should be passed by this legislature. But, I would like to meet the views of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, and I have this suggestion to make if it will meet with his approval. I recognize that that section 2, which contains a declaration that these works are for the general advantage of Canada, may be open to some objection. Let me say to the committee that this is not at all the Bill that was defeated last year in the Senate. The reason for the defeat in the Senate in part was that the Bill of last year provided for the company going out along all the branches of the Nipigon and Pigeon rivers and erecting storage works for the control of the flow of the water. That has been entirely cut out of the Bill because of the criticism in the Senate Committee. It was pointed out that some of the streams might partake of a different character from either the Nipigon or the Piseon rivers and might not be fairly classed as navigable streams. In view of the force of that statement the clause of last year has been entirely cut out of this Bill, so that, in that respect, it is quite a different Bill. I propose that section 2 shall read in this way: *
Tire works authorized by this Act, in so far only as relates to the development of water powers and electrical transmission, are declared works for the general advantage of Canada.
That would confine it to the two objects alone. I do not know whether that will
meet the views of the Minister of Justice or not, but it seems to me that it would be a very fair declaration. Some hon. gentlemen have asked: 'Why have that declaration at all? What is the purpose of having that declaration?' In answer I may say that this company is proposing to expend a large .sum of money. They will have to go into the money markets and borrow upon their security, no doubt, to carry out their undertaking. They do not want any doubt as to their rights. They do not want any doubt as to whether the Act which they obtain is beyond dispute or not, and m that sense the declaration is regarded as being of some advantage to them. Whether that is a sufficient reason or not I am not prepared to say, but I do say that it is a shield against attack. We see that some of these companies have been dragged into the courts and from court to court under one pretence or another in regard to their charter and the idea was that as a shield against such attacks a declaration, framed as I have just read it, would be of advantage to the company. I cannot see wherein any interest or any individual could possibly be prejudiced by the insertion of that declaration in that section.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the hon. gentleman think we could insert in a section like that, the declaration that a certain part of the works are for the general advantage of Canada while excluding a certain other part?


James Conmee: Certainly; you can declare that certain works are for the general advantage of Canada, and if you do not declare that other works are for the general advantage of Canada they will not come within that classification.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But it is part of the same works.


James Conmee: No. This would cut out the manufacturing works. This company propose to create manufacturing establishments. They propose to manufacture pulp and paper and land and marine motors. They would not come under that declaration at all. As I understand the Minister of Justice, if that amendment were not put in all the works of the company might fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion. Whether that would prejudice anybody or not I am not prepared to say, but I thought that the amendment which I have submitted would be a pretty fair proposition.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am sure that the committee has been very gratified to have listened to such an excellent dissertation upon law and fact as we have listened to during the last hour from the hon. member for Thunder bay and Rainy river (Mr. Conmee). He has given to the consideration of these questions a great deal of thought and in his

remarks he has brought to bear upon the consideration of the many matters involved vast experience and learning. But I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that as the hon. gentleman struggled through, as he did in a most able manner' the various intricacies, the constitutional by-ways and the various decisions affecting the .respective rights appertaining to the Dominion and the provinces under the British North America Act, recalling, as the hon. gentleman's remarks did, to my mind, various other statements and arguments that in days long gone by I had heard the hon. gentleman make, both from the public platform and in the legislature of Ontario, of which he was then a member, I was forcibly reminded, Sir, of the story of a western statesman who, having argued volubly from a public platform in favour of the policy which he was advocating, concluded his remarks with these words: ' Now, ladies and gentlemen, these are my views and if you don't like them they can be changed.' The hon. gentleman peculiarly has arguments which, according to time and season and the expediency and exigencies of each situation can be made to adapt themselves as the situation requires. I think that it can be said that there is no question upon which the hon. gentleman has varied his policy and has changed so diametrically his views as he has upon the questions which are involved in and which form the main principles of this Bill. Why, from 1885, when the hon. gentleman first went into the political arena and became a supporter of the late Hon. Sir Oliver Mowat, that doughty champion of provincial rights, whose policy the hon. gentleman so loyally followed-


James Conmee: And still follows.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes, and still follows, the hon. gentleman in every campaign in which he was following loyally declared in favour of provincial rights, everything for the provinces, the mines, the lumber, the licenses, the fisheries, the surrendered Indian lands -everything should go to the provinces, including the water-powers. But a change suddenly came over the spirit of the dreams of the hon. gentleman. It was not a gradual change, it came suddenly, almost in a night, and that was the night of the 25th day of January, 1905. Why, Sir, from 1886 until the night of the 25th of January, 1905, the hon. gentleman from Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) had the most implicit confidence in the fullest possible powers of the legislature of the province of Ontario to pass such legislation and to control companies of this kind which were exclusively within their jurisdiction. What do we find? The first step the hon. gentleman took was with regard to a company with which he was intimately connected, of which he was an in-Mr. BOYCB.
corporator and provisional director and which from 1886 to 1904 had been incorporated and kept exclusively within the jurisdiction and control of the province of Ontario.


James Conmee: What company was that?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That was the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company.


James Conmee: Oh.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes, yes, yes.


James Conmee: I would like to know what the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company has got to do with this.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend from 1886 to 1905 laboured, I presume, under the delusion, as he would have us now believe, that these matters were within the legislative control exclusively of the province of Ontario. He secured the incorporation of that company in an Act of the Ontario legislature which gave it very large powers. He renewed that charter and renewed it, and renewed it, without having performed one of its stipulations. Session after session he secured from the legislature of Ontario unconditional renewals of the powers granted by this Act until this awful calamity happened on the 25th of January, 1905. After that calamity he knocked but once more at the doors of the legislature and he was met with the condition that he must proceed with the work and must spend $300,000 in one year. What did he do? Not one single thing to carry out the conditions.


James Conmee: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is addressing his remarks to me. I had nothing to do with the railway company of which he speaks for more than 20 years.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Except as an incorporator, a provisional director.


James Conmee: My name was used on one or two occasions. I never had a dollar's interest in it, I never was a promoter, I was never anything more to the company than the member who introduced the Bill.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I was proceeding to say that the moment the Ontario legislature, as constituted in 1905, directed the company to do something to carry out the objects of incorporation and spend $300,000 in one year, the company, without having done one single thing, without having spent a dollar as ordered by the legislature, came to the parliament of Canada of which the hon. gentleman was then a member, and he said: 'This is a matter entirely and exclusively within the control of the Dominion parliament, it must

be relegated to Dominion jurisdiction and there it must stay,' and that railway, which for all these years, had nestled snugly and safely in the lap of the provincial legislature, the moment something was to he done, the moment terms were imposed by the Tory administration, the hon. gentleman comes here and says:
' Jurisdiction over this company must be taken away from the province of Ontario and it must be declared a work for the general advantage of Canada.' The hon. gentleman argued from his place that the work mentioned in that Bill was a work for the general benefit of the Dominion of Canada, and he gave no other excuses for the non-performance of the conditions imposed by the legislature of Ontario in regard to promoting and safeguarding the interests of the public than that it had suddenly grown, by reason of this awful calamity, a work for the general advantage of Canada and this House so declared it.


James Conmee: Does the hon. gentleman say I was an incorporator of that company?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes, I say he was that.


James Conmee: If the hon. gentleman looks at the Act he will find he is mistaken.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Has he the document?


James Conmee: No.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Neither have I.


James Conmee: Then he should not make the statement.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have made the statement before and you never denied it.


James Conmee: I deny it now.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I accept the hon. gentleman's denial.


James Conmee: I understood the hon. member to say that I was one of the incorporators of the company when it came here. I was not one of the promoters, not when it came here.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I did not say that. I do not want to do any injustice. I say that the hon. gentleman was one of the original incorporators and directors of that company when it was originally incorporated in the Ontario legislature.


James Conmee: I understood the hon. gentleman to say ' then what did the hon. gentleman do? He came down to this House,'-and then he went on to state what I had done here. I had nothing to do with the Bill for many years before it came here. Mr. Clergue and his companies had control of it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I accept entirely the hon. gentleman's explanation of what happened
after the incorporation of the company. This is one of the questions on which the hon. gentleman who has become an authority on these great constitutional questions, has changed his views. There are others. We listened to a learned disquisition on this subject from the Minister of Justice, and while the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Conmee) did not agree with the Minister of Justice in all respects, he went a little further in some respects. The hon. gentleman said in this House that this Nipigon river was an international stream.


James Conmee: No.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Was international in its character. At page 1068 of ' Hansard ' the hon. member said:
The Pigeon river is an international water and the Nipigon is a navigable water, and, in my opinion, also international in character.
Then at page 1069 we find:


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is an international water.


James Conmee: Certainly, so is the Nipigon river, to a certain extent at least, in my opinion.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Not seriously?


James Conmee: Yes, I am quite serious, and I am quite prepared to back up my opinion with sufficient evidence.
That was on the 15th of February, 1909, upon this very same Bill, and yet the hon. gentleman now argues solemnly before this committee that the Nipigon river is not an international stream, but that as a navigable stream it should be subject to the jurisdiction of this parliament.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman will pardon me for a moment. He has made the statement that I stated in the House that the Nipigon river was an international stream.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I read the hon. gentleman's remarks in ' Hansard.'


James Conmee: It does not matter what the hon. gentleman has read from ' Hansard.' I never made the statement. Another thing, I cannot find those words in * Hansard.' The hon. member for Hastings repeated-


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I gave place to the hon. member to ask a question, not to make a speech.


James Conmee: If the hon. member wants to insist on that sort of buncombe, I suppose he can do it.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member should not use an expression of that kmd.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I did not say that it was necessary for the hon. member to withdraw the expression. I think that much liberty of expression the Chairman has. I called his attention to it as an inappropriate expression, but it does not follow that on all occasions such expressions must be withdrawn.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman seems to be very scrupulous. I said I did not want to do him any injustice, and I quoted his words from 'Hansard'; and yet the hon. gentleman gets up and says he did not use those words and cannot find them. I will give him the pages-1068 and 1069, dated February the 15th, unrevised ' Hansard.' The first ground the hon. gentleman took to argue himself into a position to assert that this parliament and no other should have jurisdiction over the Nipigon river was that it was an international water -international in character; I suppose he means of international reputation. I think the hon. gentleman's remarks this afternoon have sufficiently disposed of that argument. Now, the hon. gentleman argues that by reason of the Nipigon river being a navigable river, this parliament should have jurisdiction over it. I take issue with my hon. friend upon that point; and in the next place, conceding for the sake of argument that the Nipigon river may be considered to be a navigable river for the purposes of this Act, the legislature of Ontario has full legislative jurisdiction. Looking at a sketch of the Nipigon river which I have I see that very close to the mouth, of the river there are rapids, and that the river is navigable for a distance of only about three miles beyond those rapids until there is another rapid; that is, it is navigable in the sense of being deep enough for boats to travel between those two points. From there on it is not in any sense a navigable river. But if we concede for the sake of argument that the two or three miles between those two rapids make of the Nipigon river a navigable stream, what then? My hon. friend has quoted voluminously and learnedly from a case in law to establish the fact that where there is a navigable stream, the jurisdiction of the province must perforce cease; but there is where I must take issue with the hon. gentleman, and upon the very case which he has cited. He quotes from the decision of the Privy Council in the fisheries case, reported in Appeal Cases of 1898, at page 700. Lord Herschel was one of _ the Lords Justices who delivered judgment in that case, and this is what he said at page 714;-and I commend it to the mature deliberation of my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River, because he must have omitted this paragraph from the judgment which he read:
Lord Herschel expressed the view that R.S.O., 1887, chap. 24, sec. 47, is within the Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.
legislative authority of Ontario, except so far as ooncerns lands in public harbours and canals, if any of the latter be included. This section authorizes the Lieutenant Governor to make sales or appropriations of ' land covered with water in the harbours, rivers and other navigable waters in Ontario, under such conditions as it has been or it may be deemed requisite to impose, but not so as to interfere with the use of any harbour as a harbour, or with the navigation of any harbour, river or other navigable waters.'
That is a part of the dictum in the fisheries case. Where does that leave my hon. friend? There is no part of the Nipigon river which the hon. gentleman proposes to develop under this power Bill which can by any stretch of imagination be said to be navigable. Nothing that the Ontario legislature could do in the exercise of its legislative jurisdiction could possibly interfere with the navigation of that river. My hon. friend must therefore see that where there is no interference by the actual exercise of jurisdiction by the local legislature, there is no clash of jurisdiction with the Dominion parliament, and the matter rests solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. But my hon. friend has experienced, even in this connection, and it is lamentable to notice it, a great change of heart-a great reversal of judgment; and I cannot understand why he should have reversed his judgment when he thought that the judgment he expressed to-day was so much in line with what Lord Herschel and the Lords Justices had said in deciding the fisheries case. The hon. gentleman's argument to-day was in line with the way in which he read the fisheries case, when he said that where there was a navigable river and where the works proposed to be constructed would interfere -with the navigation of that river, then the jurisdiction passed to this parliament. After first approving of that decision of the Privy Council, after removing for all time any doubt as to what their lordships really meant, after having given the people of Canada his dictum as to what was in their lordships' mind, when they gave that judgment, although not expressed in it, my hon. friend said- and I refer to his remarks because they are very pertinent in this connection. They will be found on page 66697 of ' Hansard,' June 30, 1906:
Whatever power is available for the Canadian side is a question entirely within the jurisdiction of the Ontario government, first, as regards the use of the bed of the river for that purpose, and second, of this government as regards the use of the stream, because it ir an international stream.
Does the hon. gentleman say that to-day?


James Conmee: Certainly. I have never argued that the provincial government had not rights. But what I say is that whatever rights they have, whether in an inter-

national stream or a navigable stream, are not interfered with by this Bill.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The quotation I have read refers to the St. Mary's river, which undoubtedly is an international stream, and in that connection he says you have to go to Ontario in order to get your rights.


James Conmee: Not at all.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman said:
Whatever power is available for the Canadian side is a question entirely within the jurisdiction, as I understand it, first, of the Ontario government as regards the use of the bed of the river

The hon. gentleman was talking about the St. Mary's river, which is an international and navigable stream, and he says that the first thing you have to do is to go to the Ontario government because it owns the bed of the stream.


James Conmee: If the hon. gentleman will only use my words and not enlarge on them the committee will understand him better.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I must ask my hon-. friend to allow me to retain the floor.


James Conmee: Go on and make all the misrepresentations you please.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman must withdraw those words.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member has no right to charge misrepresentation, and I hope he will withdraw the expression.


James Conmee: Surely no one is obliged to sit and listen to another misrepresenting his words without making some protest.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman has no right to make comments on my ruling, but must withdraw the expression which I have ruled out of OTder.


James Conmee: I said that I never made use of the words the hon. gentleman attributed to me, and under the rules of the House he is bound to take my word.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman has the right to make an explanation on the point of order, but not to make a speech or any lengthy remarks.


James Conmee: What I say is that I never used the language the hon. gentleman has attributed to me. I went on to correct him and he objected. I never used the language or contended for the principle he imputes to me.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman said to the hon. member for Algoma that he could go on and make misrepresentations to any extent he saw fit.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That was the expression I thought not in order, and the hon. gentleman must withdraw both the use of the word ' you,' thus addressing a member directly insisted of the Chair, and the charging of an hon. member with misrepresentation.


James Conmee: I bow, Sir, to your ruling, but let me ask that the rules of the House be enforced equally against all members. I rose in my place and said I had not used the words which the hon. gentleman cited as mine, and he continued to repeat them, and was not called to order. I ask now that he be called to ordeT regarding the statement he has made.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is too late now to raise a point of order with regard to words uttered some time ago. Had I noticed any unparliamentary words I would have had them withdrawn, but my attention was not called to any such. I understand that the hon .member for Rainy River has withdrawn the expression I ruled out of order.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: You state, Sir, that the hon. gentleman has withdrawn the expressions. I have read the hon. gentleman's words as they appear in the records of the House. The hon. gentleman stood up and said he did not use these words.


James Conmee: I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement. I have no objection to his reading any words I have uttered, but what I do object to is the misrepresentation he applies to them. What I object to is his misrepresentation of my words and not to his reading them.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I was proceeding to state that the position which the hon. gentleman found it then expedient to take was a position, as appears by his own words, that in St. Mary's river, an international, navigable stream, whatever powers are there available for the Canadian side come entirely within the jurisdiction, first, of the Ontario government as regards the bed of the river, and secondly, of this government, as regards the use of the water. He could not have made use of a broader example, because, if there be any stream in Canada in which there would be an interference by the provincial government in the exercise of what it conceived to be its legislative jurisdiction, it would be that river because it combines the two elements about which my hon. friend has argued separately. Because, in the Nipigon river he has, according to his own contention, a navigable, but-contrary to his own contention on the same Bill a few days ago- not an international stream; and in the Pigeon river, he has an international, though I understand that he does not argue it to be a navigable stream.


James Conmee: I argued that both were navigable.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then, I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. But, as I say, the hon. gentleman has stated as strong a case as possible for the contention that where you have an international and navigable stream, you must go to the provincial legislature for whatever power you require. And therefore I say to him now that I accept his word as contained in that argument, and I say that is the place for him to go and that is where he ought to be.


James Conmee: I again call attention to the hon. member's (Mr. Boyce's) course. In the language which he read, I merely stated that the ownership, or control if you choose to use the word, of the bed of the river was in the provincial government, and the hon. gentleman continues to misrepresent in that respect.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) did not say that. In order that he may not forget the words to which I have referred, I will read them again:
Whatever power is available for the Canadian side is a question entirely within the jurisdiction, as I understand it, first, of the Ontario government as regards the use of the bed of the river for that purpose; and, second, of this government as regards the use of the water, because it is an international stream, and I assume they would have to get the consent of this government.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: When you left the Chair, Mr. Chairman, I was proceeding to discuss the question of a navigable water as affecting the question of jurisdiction, and as being one of the excuses which the hon. member who is promoting this Bill has put forth, supported by the Minister of Justice, for interference with what I conceive to be the exclusive jurisdiction of the province of Ontario in this case, and of other provinces in cases of a similar nature. The main contention of my hon. friend, as I understand, is that because the Nipigon and Pigeon rivers are navigable to some extent, any works for the development of power, or any works which in any way encroach upon these navigable rivers, would be beyond the jurisdiction of the province, and therefore ultra vires of its legislature. Now I do not understand that there is any longer any virtue in that argument, I understand that such arguments have been at least discussed by the fisheries case, and disposed of by another case with which I suppose my hon. friend is familiar, that is the case of Me-1 Mr. BOYCE.
Millan vs. South West Boom Company, reported in 2 Cartwright, page 542. The gist of that decision is that the fact that a river is navigable does not in itself alone transfer that river to the Dominion jurisdiction. That is the gist of the decision in the McMillan case, and it runs through the Fisheries case, as I have shown, and is in accordance, as I understand it, with the views laid down by my hon. friend himself three years ago. If I were to go further along the line I was following before recess, I would point out to my hon. friend the position in which he found himself when he advocated that principle. He was asking this parliament to declare as a work for the general benefit of Canada a railway company which was incorporated in Ontario and continued to be under provincial jurisdiction. I know he will remember, and that other members of the committee will remember, the strenuous objection that was raised from this side of the House on the ground that the declaration of that work as one for the general advantage of Canada would seriously interfere with provincial jurisdiction, and would deprive the province of certain water-powers which were in a state of semi-development on that river, iviy hon. friend's contention, in order to get his measure 'through, was this: ' We cannot take your water-powers, we are not interfering with your water-powers; if we wished to interfere with your water-powers we could not for the reason '-and the reason is given in the quotation I made to my hon. friend of his own words-' that these water-powers are entirely within the jurisdiction, first, of the province of Ontario as regards the river bed, and secondly, of this parliament as regards the question of an international stream.' Now my hon. friend has said that these are powers which should not be given by the Ontario legislature, that they aTe powers ultra vires of the1 Ontario legislature. My answer to that is what my hon. friend announced as his principle on the 30th day of June, 1905, and that he had consistently adhered to prior to that time; because I find on reference to the Acts of the Ontario legislature so far back as 1886, which was the year after my hon. friend first entered public life and became a legislator in this country, that he introduced a measure, or was the promoter of a measure, called the Ontario & Rainy River Railway Company, incorporated by chapter 75 of the Ontario Act of 1886, and I commend to my hon. friend the reading of some of the powers which are given to that company by that Act. It was an Ontario railway which was promoted towards Rat-Portage, and by section 33, these powers were given to that company:
It shall and may be lawful for the company at any point where the railway, or any

branch thereof, approaches within two miles of any navigable waters, to purchase and hold as its absolute property, and for the use of the company, wharfs, piers, docks, water lots, water frontages, and lands; and upon the said water lots, water frontages and lands, and in and over the waters adjoining the same, to build and erect elevators, storehouses, warehouses and engine houses, sheds, wharfs, docks, piers and other erections.
' On navigable waters,' which are as my hon. friend contends now, absolutely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of this parliament. So we find the hon. gentleman, during the time the late Hon. Mr. Mowat was Prime Minister of Ontario, promoting and advocating a Bill and getting it carried into law, giving to this company all sorts of powers which are exercised upon navigable waters. Well, if I wanted to elaborate and multiply instances, I might also refer my hon. friend to the Bill incorporating the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company, the very railway which we were discussing before Tecess. Section 6 of the Act, which is chapter 76 of the Ontario statutes of 1886, gives the company power:
To purchase, lease, or acquire at any point where their railway or any branch thereof touches, or approaches within two miles of any navigable waters, sufficient land for the uses of the company, their railway and vessels run or navigated in connection with said railway, and the company may erect warehouses, elevators, docks, wharfs, stations, workshops, and such other buildings as may be necessary for the purposes of the company, and may sell and convey such land as may be found superfluous for any such purposes.
These are similar powers to those given to the Ontario & Rainy River Railway Company. My hon. friend admitted that he was the promoter of this Bill. I also noticed that by section 1, one J. Conmee is an incorporator of the company and a provisional director. So that my hon. friend was doing


James Conmee: When was that?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: In 1886


James Conmee: Oh.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that that was not he?


James Conmee: No, I was only asking the date. Go ahead; it is all right.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: 1886. So that what my hon. friend was doing, in the Ontario legislature in 1886, a year after he came into public life, when he had drawn the first innocent breaths of his political career, before he had become contaminated by his associations and by different spheres of activity-


James Conmee: Be careful now.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What he was doing, as the promoter of a Bill of which he himself was incorporator and a provisional director, was exactly what he now says the Ontario legislature has no power to do, namely, to give power to construct works upon navigable waters. The other excuse that my hon. friend puts forward, and one which was emphasized very strongly by the Minister of Justice, had reference to the right given to this company to export power. I must confess that it was a somewhat shocking and sweeping proposition for the Minister of Justice to say that because this company purported to have power to export its surplus product to the United States, the Ontario legislature was deprived of jurisdiction to legislate with reference to this matter and that therefore the question was brought exclusively within the jurisdiction of this parliament. I was not absolutely certain that that was what the Minister of Justice meant to say and I sent him over a written question in order that I might be sure. He read that question over and sent an answer in the affirmative. Let us see where that leads us. Because there is inserted in any Dominion Bill introduced on behalf of a company seeking power to export its surplus product to the United States the Ontario legislature is deprived of jurisdiction. What is to prevent any power company under the sun from coming to this House, putting in its Bill the right to export its surplus product and thus take away from the province of Ontario every vestige of power rights it has? I think this committee will desire something more weighty from the Minister of Justice than a proposition like that. It certainly does not appeal to me as being founded on sound common sense from the legal point of view, and it is certainly not such an opinion as we should expect to receive from that hon. gentleman. But it does seem to me that if ever there was a paltry, flimsy excuse by which the jurisdiction that the Ontario government is exercising with regard to the power question can be stolen from it the Minister of Justice gave it to this committee this afternoon in the speech which he made.
Now, I want to refer for a moment to some of the Ontario legislation with respect to poweT. I will first refer to the Act which was passed by the Ontario legislature respecting water-powers in 1898. By that Act, Chapter 8, the commissioner of Crown lands was given power to:
Reserve from sale any water-power or privilege on the Crown lands of the province, and a sufficient area of land in connection therewith for the erection of buildings and plant, together with the right to lay out and use such roads as may be necessary for passage to and from such water-power or privi-

lege and land, and may under regulations to be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, make terms and conditions upon which such water-power and land so reserved may be sold, or leased, and developed.
That was assented to on the 17th January 1889. At that time the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River was a supporter of the government in the Ontario legislature, and I do not know that he lifted up his voice or made any very strenuous objection to the Ontario government exercising control over the waters or over the bed of the river when they took that course. Then again, following the history of Ontario legislation in regard to power, we find an Act passed in 1903, just before the late government went out of power. That was an Act providing for the construction of municipal power works and the transmission, distribution and supply of electrical and other power and energy. I shall not take up the time of the committee by reading it at length, but I would commend to my hon. friend and to other members of the committee the full powers which are given to the municipal commission under this Act for the acquisition and the control of power rights. Then, we find that the present government, in the year 1906, introduced an Act which was passed by the legislature of Ontario, being chapter 15, and entitled 'An Act to provide for the transmission of electrical power to municipalities'; otherwise known as the HydroElectric Power Commission Act. It gave certain powers to a commission to examine into, to inquire and to report upon water-powers in the province of Ontario. By section 11 that Act provides :
The commission may, from time to time, report to the Governor in Council, designating such lands, water privileges, water-powers or the lands, works, machinery and plant, or any portion thereof of any company or person owning, or holding under lease or otherwise, or developing, operating or using any water privilege or water-power, or transmitting electrical or other power or energy in the province of Ontario which should, in the opinion of the commission, be purchased, acquired, leased, taken or expropriated, developed, operated or used by the commission for the purposes of this Act, or may designate what quantity of the product of any such corporation or individual developing electrical power or energy in the province of Ontario, or purchasing such power or energy the commission requires for the purposes of this Act.
Again, by section 12, the Lieutenant-Governor was authorized:
to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise, or without the consent of the owners thereof, or persons interested therein to enter upon, take and use the lands, works, plant and property of any company or person owning, using and developing or operating lands, water, water privileges, or works, plant and 1


Arthur Cyril Boyce: machinery for the development of any water privilege or water-power for the purpose of generating electrical power or energy, or for the transmission thereof in the province of Ontario, and to develop and supply electrical power or energy.
That was an absolute legislative assertion of the right of the province of Ontario to deal with and to exercise control of, to expropriate and to manage exclusively any water-powers in the province of Ontario and to control the rates. That power policy has been approved of by the people of Ontario and is now being carried out by the government of that province to the great and lasting benefit of the people. The power commission appointed by the Ontario government made a special report with regard to the water-powers in the Algoma, Thunder Bay and Rainy River districts. In that report the very water-power sought to be acquired by this company is dealt with as a part of the power policy of the Ontario government. At page 17 of the commission's fifth report there is a reference to the Cameron Rapids development, the very power which my hon. friend in committee admitted this company proposed to use. How then could this parliament authorize a company to utilize that power without a direct clash of authority?
Section 8 of this Bill provides:
The company may-
(a) acquire, develop, improve, maintain and operate water-powers, use, supply and sell water-power for any purpose, by any means of application, generate, by means of waterpower or otherwise, electricity, heat, light and any other form of energy, and transmit the same by any means to, and supply and sell the same for use in any manner at, any place in Canada and the United States.
The one point on the Nipigon river is the very point referred to in the report of the Ontario Hydro-Electric Commission.
The last report of the Waterways Commission, which is a Dominion commission, expressly seeks to prevent the giving away of any further water-powers until such time as a thorough examination shall be made as to their extent and development. Supplementing that I would quote from a newspaper account of a very interesting lecture delivered here by Professor Shortt before the Canadian Society of Civil Engineers, on ' Water-powers.' The keynote to his address was: ' Keep your water-powers, do not give them away or dissipate them now because therein lies the future welfare of the manufacturing industries of this country.' May I quote from the report of Professor Shortt's address in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of April 5:
The people of Canada were beginning to wake up to the fact that the resources of the country werre being rapidly depleted and from this awakening the movement for the conservation of resources had sprung. The recent conference at Washington had been a very

hopeful sign, and the document sent to Canada as the result was a wise one. It was Gtal that the idea of conserving resources should be brought home to the individual realization of the people of the continent. The steps already taken should be augmented by the full awakening of public sentiment.
The water resources of Canada were of special importance on account of the immense economic possibilities of the water regions of the country.
Professor Shortt is an eminent authority upon economic questions and has devoted a great deal of study to the question of our natural resources. It will be a serious handicap to our industrial development if the government continues to give away our water-powers.
We were told in one of the committees of the House the other day by a gentleman who was called before that committee as an expert that the National Transcontinental Railway Commission had now under consideration the electrifying of their railway right in this Nipigon region. It is the most expensive part of the railway to run, the part where fuel is most difficult to get, and the part where the cost of operation will be most heavy. Therefore, it is surely veTy much in the interest of the people of Canada that the cost of operating that railway should be minimized as much as possible. But if the largest waterpower in that district, the Cameron Rapids, is given to a private corporation, where is the benefit of that power to the people of Canada? Where is the opportunity for the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners in the future, ten or twenty years from now, to give to the people of Canada on that portion of the railway which is being built for and will be owned by the people of Canada, the advantage of lessening the cost of operation of the railway, which will be enormous in any event? The future of the towns on the great lakes is a manufacturing future. Large manufacturing industries will undoubtedly be established there, it may be in a very short time. The natural fuel there is white coal, from the water-powers which nature has so lavishly bestowed on that country, and if we are to have, as we all hope we shall have, large manufacturing centres established on the great lakes, what greater impetus can there be to the easy and expeditious establishment of such industries than the fact that we are conserving the magnificent water-powers which will give the power to turn the wheels of those great industries? My hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Mid-dlehro) has just placed in my hands an extract from an address before the Ottawa Canadian Club on this subject by Mr. Gifford Pinchot, in which he said: "
Coal will be finished by the middle of the next century. High grade iron ores, oil and gas will disappear by the middle of this
century. Waste by erosion of lands easily prevented was incalculable. Forests were not*" producing anything like what they should; of every 1,000 board feet of lumber in the woods only 310 was made into lumber. The reasonably available water-power in the United States could operate every railway, run every trolley car, light every home, turn every spindle in the country. If coal disappeared at once, water-power could easily take its place. The commission (the International Conservation Commission of the United States) found that these water-powers were fast becoming controlled by far-sighted capitalists. If this were carried on the nation would find itself, when coal was used up, at the mercy of the greatest monopoly ever formed in the world. For when fuel disappears for motive power, heat and light, every one must go to the water-power for it.
There is one of the most cogent hints ever given by a man well versed in the subject to this government to conserve the water-powers and to refuse to put the water-powers of our country under the control of capitalists and corporations. Now, a word with regard to the position taken by the hon. Minister of Justice. That hon. gentleman, in a speech delivered in this House during this session, stated that his party was the champion of provincial rights. In contrast with the attitude taken by the hon. minister upon this Bill, his prior statement is open to some exception. He virtually tacitly assents to the measure now before this committee, which takes from the legislative control of the province of Ontario the whole of the bed of the Nipigon river and half of the bed of the Pigeon river, upon the legal or legislative fiction, first, that these rivers are at those points navigable waters, and, secondly, that power is to be exported to the United States of America in each case. Both of those arguments could be applied to every river and stream in the province of Ontario. If it is because the Nipigon river is navigable for two miles, several miles below the point at which my hon. friend's company proposes to take its power, that this government claims jurisdiction, as in the ease of the Pigeon river, the same legislative fiction could be applied to every river and stream in the province of Ontario, because at some point or other every river and stream can be said to be navigable by the application of the same logic by which my hon. friend reaches the conclusion that the Nipigon river and the Pigeon river are navigable. Then you have no reason for denying to any company the right to come to this parliament and ask for the water-powers on any stream or river in Ontario. My hon. friend has referred to the Bill respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company. If the hon. gentleman had carefully considered the situation before he cited that Bill as a part of his case, he would have hesitated. Let us see where it would land him. My

hon. friend is claiming that this parliament has power and that the legislature of Ontario has no power to give to the Ontario and Michigan Power Company the right to own, control, develop and operate water-powers on the Pigeon and Nipigon rivers. He cites the case of the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, which in the year 1905 came to this parliament to ask by private legislation for certain powers. My hon. friend was the promoter of that Bill, and certain powers were granted subject to certain conditions.


James Conmee: No, I was not the promoter. I opposed the Bill.
Mr!. BOYCE. That legislation passed and certain powers were granted over an international stream practically along the lines of this Bill. My hon. friend referred to it as a precedent for the very legislation he is now introducing.


James Conmee: I did not cite the case of the Ontario and Minnesota Power Bill as a justification for this measure, but as a case in which the interests of the people were not guarded by provincial legislation.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That legislation passed, and in the year 1906, we find that company going to the Ontario legislature for the Act to which my hon. friend has referred. Why did it go to the Ontario government after having come here?


James Conmee: They went there to escape the obligations which this parliament imposed upon them in the interests of the people. *


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I accept, so far as it goes, my hon. friend's explanation, but I do not know that it places him in any better position. They went because it was contended that the company was not bound by the conditions imposed by this parliament but was entitled to deal with the waterpower free from the restrictions imposed by the Dominion Act. What is the provincial legislation which was granted ? Clause 1 gives the company the right to provide power on the Canadian side of the river. Subsection 2 provides that the works shall be on the Canadian side. Subsection 3 provides for the settlement of any dispute regarding the rates to be charged for the power, bringing the whole question back within the jurisdiction of the provincial legislation. In answer to my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) my hon. friend said that the Ontario government were usurping the jurisdiction of this parliament in passing that Bill.


James Conmee: Yes.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: He further said that that Act was ultra vires the province of Ontario. The Minister of Justice made a I


Arthur Cyril Boyce: similar argument this afternoon. If what he said was the case with regard to the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, as it should be with the Ontario and Michigan Power Company, that Act was ultra vires the province of Ontario. But did we hear of any application for disallowance? Did my hon. friend make any such application? Why did he, with all his knowledge of constitutional questions, not suggest to the Minister of Justice that that Act was ultra vires of the province of Ontario and a usurpation by that province of the rights of this parliament? I do_ not know that the argument of the Minister of Justice could have any more conclusive answer than my hon. friend has given him in the case he cited of the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, because if there be any virtue in the argument of the Minister of Justice or of my hon. friend, the Ontario government had no power to pass that Act and it should have been disallowed. However, it was not disallowed and remains to-day as law, although to-day it is recognized as a usurpation of the jurisdiction of this parliament by that same minister, before whom it came up in order to determine whether it was a proper Act for the Ontario legislature to pass or not. He must therefore be assumed to have passed upon its validity and to have recognized that the Ontario government had the power to control the water in an international and navigable stream. Consequently his action in that matter negatives his argument today.
One more word and I am glad to see the right hon. the Prime Minister in his place. The right hon. gentleman has adopted the policy of the conservation of our natural resources. But the most important of those is our water-powers. Is he going, notwithstanding the warnings of men like Prof. Shortt and Mr. Pinchot and the speeches made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), to allow the water-powers of this country to be given over to the control of corporations, which will thereby obtain vested rights in them to the great disadvantage of our people, particularly in the future when our New Ontario will have blossomed as the rose. Of what use will be the committee which the right hon. gentleman has appointed on our forests, waterways and water-powers, unless such questions as this are to be brought before it? Why could not this Bill be referred to that committee? I again appeal to him to carry out his policy of conservation and to stick to his principle of provincial rights. There is here a very serious conflict of jurisdiction from which he cannot escape. The Ontario government takes control of certain powers in certain rivers and streams in Ontario and provides for the regulating and developing of those

powers and the rates that shall be charged the public for their use. That policy is a popular one endorsed by the people of that province. This Bill cannot be regarded as other than a direct and flagrant interference with that policy and an attempt to wrest from the province of Ontario the jurisdiction given it by our constitution, by our laws, by the precedents of our judges in contested cases, and by the right of user. Therefore, I say to the right hon. the Prime Minister that I sincerely hope, before he allows this Bill to go, either now in committee or before it has received its third reading, he will consider well these two questions, the question of provincial rights, and the question of conservation of our natural national resources, that he will look to the future, and will stay this Bill with what I conceive to be its ini-quitious provisions and the extraordinary powers it grants.


Haughton Lennox: There has been a great deal of argument on this Bill which we should take very seriously into consideration. I do not think I shall go into the question, interesting as it is, of jurisdiction. I think that has been presented so very well from this side of the House that it is almost useless to argue it further. Of course I was very much interested in the elaborate argument of the hon. member (Mr. Conmee) who is promoting the Bill. It is always interesting to hear him speak, and especially to hear him deal with questions of law. In fact, we had rather a rare treat this afternoon, because we had first the learned and clever argument of the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Aylesworth) which I think I can compliment myself on having elicited, and then we had the speech of what I may call the junior counsel, the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee). It is always particularly interesting to hear him deal, with such complete confidence as he shows with legal questions, especially those questions that are probably more difficult than any others, the questions of jurisdiction between the province and the Dominion. I am sorry that I cannot transfer to 'Hansard' and embalm in its pages a very pretty little picture I clipped some time ago from the Toronto 'Telegram.' It expresses the situation very nicely. It shows upon the platform the hon. gentleman who is promoting this Bill-an excellent likeness of him, as any one who looks at the picture will recognize-He is in an eloquent attitude, and fortified with a glass and pitcher-I presume, of water-and evidently intends to discuss the question at any length as he discussed this afternoon the question of law. Sir J. P. Whitney is figuratively at the feet of this Gamaliel, below the platform. He ventures a suggestion, 'You cannot give a charter contrary to provincial rights.' Sir. J. P.
Whitney has not been in the House of Commons, or he would recognize that that is limiting our power very decidedly, and that we can and that we do grant charters contrary to provincial rights. But my hon. friend from Thunder Bay and Rainy River sets Sir J. P. Whitney right, and expresses the situation in a few words. I may say that the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Aylesworth) is represented in the picture also, in a somewhat less conspicuous attitude than the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River, and a very excellent likeness of the Minister of Justice it is as well. To Sir J, P. Whitney replies James Conmee, J.P., M.P., expressing himself much to the same effect as he did this afternoon:	'If me and me learned friend
Brother Aylesworth read the British North America Act aright, we kin give a man a charter to take the furnace out of your cellar for the general advantage of Canada.'


Mr. CALVERT.: 13 that sarcasm?


Haughton Lennox: Perhaps? I am not responsible for it. It is from a leading daily newspaper, the ' Evening Telegram ' of Toronto.


James Conmee: Mr. Chairman, I would call your attention to the action of the hon. member (Mr. Lennox). I do not think he has any right, according to the ruling this afternoon, to read articles that reflect upon members of this House.


Haughton Lennox: I might just interject
here that this


James Conmee: I have called attention to a point of order.


Haughton Lennox: I suppose I may address the chair on the point of order-


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: There is a definite Tule under which I ruled this afternoon. I scarcely think the item desirable, but I am not prepared to rule it out of order as a reflection upon the hon member (Mr. Conmee).


James Conmee: I call attention to the language. I do not object to the picture, but the language used would certainly fall under Tule 19 as well as other rules of the House as I understand them.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If I thought the article really reflected injuriously upon the hon. gentleman, I would not allow it, but I do not think it does.


Haughton Lennox: This matter is really becoming a roaring farce-


James Conmee: I think so.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is not allowable to characterize any proceeding of this House as 'a roaring farce.'


Haughton Lennox: I withdraw 'roaring farce,' Mr. Chairman. It would be a roaring farce if it were outside. But I may be permitted to say that we can carry to an absurd length the practice of constantly objecting to statements made in the House. The matter I have referred to concerning my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) is such that a man has to be very sensitive and thin-skinned indeed-my hon. friend is a very sensitive gentleman, I presume-to feel hurt or injured by it. I do not know anybody who could be more perturbed than I would be if I intentionally caused any worry to the hon. gentleman. I recognize that he has the greatest consideration for every hon. member on this side of the House, and it would be very bad taste on my part to say anything that would cause him annoyance. I hope he will not object to my paying him a little special attention, if he would so designate it, in reference to his Bill-without any covert meaning on the word 'special' either. But I regard his Bill as of sufficient importance to call for very careful attention, not to say special attention, on the part of hon members of this House.
Now, I said I would not discuss the question of jurisdiction. But I want to say as distinctly as I can that it is our duty to consider his measure very carefully from the point of view of policy. If you admit that we have jurisdiction to pass this Bill, still, as the Minister of Justice said this afternoon, there remains the great question whether it is judicious, expedient, wise, to enact this legislation, and it is from that point of view, Mr. Chairman, that I wish to speak for a few minutes. Like all legislative bodies, we do unwise things at times. I venture to say that we will do nothing more unwise this session than we will do if we pass this legislation, speaking from the standpoint of expediency alone. What are we doing? We are giving a company which is incorporated, not for patriotic purposes, not for the development of any portion of our territory, but for purely speculative and profitable purposes; and we are giving them without one dollar, a right to exploit our rivers, and to collect the latent energy that lies in those rivers, the enormous wealth those water-powers afford to the people of the province of Ontario, and this in face of the fact that the Whitney government have adopted a policy for developing this power throughout Ontario for the benefit of the people, which -we are handing over to a corporation to use for their own advantage; and worse than that, to export at least one-half of that power, at their will, into the territory of a foreign power, and by means of that exported energy to enable those people to build up rival institutions in the United States to the detriment of the Dominion of Canada- Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER
that is what we are doing. From that standpoint I for one will oppose to the utmost this legislation and this class of legislation. I have no quarrel with my hon. friend. He and I have had some little passages, and with pleasure I have read the graphic accounts of it in the organ of the Minister of Agriculture, my hon. friend the ' Farmer;' I have read the manner in which I was raked fore and aft by my hon. friend, and how I was completely wiped out the other day. But all the same, I have no hard feelings towards my hon. friend, I am only trying to guard the interests of the people of Ontario and of the people of Canada. We are going to send abroad that which would be our capital at home, which would build up industries in our own country, which would afford occupation for our people, which would develop markets for every person in the country, markets for the farmer, markets for the butcher, markets for the baker, markets for the artisan, and employment for the doctor, and for that most deserving class of all, the lawyers, and work for all; and whilst we are robbing ourselves, we are doing the double injury to this country of building up rival institutions on the other side of the line. We can do nothing more insane than that. An hon. gentleman said to me to-night in conversation ' why, we have done it before.' Yes, we have done lots of unwise things before. I am ashamed to recollect that whilst I listened to that Bill going through, yet because I did not feel I could effectually oppose it, I let it go through virtually without protesting against it. But I venture to say we will be doing less than our duty if we allow any more of these Bills to go through. We should say in every case-and I appeal to the Prime Minister on this matter-that we will not allow any private corporation to develop power from the energy of our rivers, from that great wealth Providence has given us, and export that into foreign territory, with the result that our young men will have to go out and work in that foreign territory, and we shall be compelled to buy back the goods which should be manufactured within our own borders.
Now let me refer to what was said about this matter a year or two ago when this Bill was before parliament on a previous occasion. I think I mav say that whilst we are to form our own opinion about these matters, yet surely if we are to live iu harmony and work in harmony for the development of Canada, it ought to be the object of this parliament at Ottawa, as far as possible, to work in unison with the interests and the aims of the legislatures of the various provinces. Now, the Ontario government has developed and has set in

operation a great scheme for serving the people by means of the energy and the power latent in its water-powers. When the Bill was before the Canadian parliament to incorporate the Ontario and Michigan Power Company a year ago, Mr. Whitney introduced the following resolution in the Ontario legislature. After reciting the Bills, the resofution affirms:
That the effect of the proposed legislation will be to enable the company, without the consent of the province, to possess itself of valuable water privileges and powers owned by the province, and to export from Ontario the power generated by means of them.
That the proposed legislation will have the effect of preventing the province from utilizing, in accordance with its declared policy, the valuable water privileges and powers of the Pigeon, Nipigon and Sturgeon rivers for the benefit of the public, and will enable the proposed company to exploit them for private gain.
That this House views with alarm the repeated encroachments of the parliament of Canada on the rights of the province, and its efforts to withdraw from provincial jurisdiction and control works of a purely provincial character, and earnestly protests against such action, which this House believes to be contrary, if not to the letter, to the spirit of the British North America Act and to the intention of the framers.
That in the opinion of this House the proposed legislation would be an unwarranted and illegal interference with the territorial sovereignty of the province, and with its exclusive legislative authority under the British North America Act, and this House earnestly and firmly protests against the proposed Bill being given the form of law.
And this House hereby declares its readiness and determination

Remember that this resolution passed unanimously, Liberals as well as Conservatives supporting it.
And this House hereby declares its readiness and determination to support with all the means, constitutional and material, which it can command, the government of Ontario in taking such measures and proceedings as may be deemed requisite to assert, maintain and defend the legislative and territorial sovereignty of the province against all aggression and encroachment by the federal government and parliament, and if necessary in appealing to the imperial parliament for such amendments to the British North America Act as will safeguard the sovereignty of the provinces therefrom.	[DOT]
It has been ruled this afternoon that we are not at liberty to quote here, for the benefit of hon. gentlemen, and in order to remind them of what they are forgetting, from editorials of the 'Globe.' But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the press of the country, the 'Globe' amongst other leading papers, are being aroused to the circumstance that members of this parliament, 143*
led by the right hon. gentleman, is receding far from their former declarations as to provincial rights, and that no people are more alarmed than the Liberals themselves at the attitude that the government has assumed in this regard. I am sincerely glad that, although there is not that evidence of complete amendment which we could desire, yet there is some evidence of improvement, of contrition, on the part of the government in the announcement made this afternoon by the Minister of Justice. We have been fighting strenuously against that iniquitous proposition which has been incorporated in so many Bills declaring, absolutely without evidence, that the enactment is for the general advantage of Canada. I am glad that the Minister of Justice, to-day, has to some extent come over to the views of the opposition by declaring that he cannot support that declaration in this charter. As regards the second clause he says that it is impossible to say that this is an enactment for the general advantage of Canada and that the clause should be struck out. In 1905 I find that Sir Wm. Mulock, in this House, enunciated sentiments somewhat along the same line, but I am sorry to say that the government has had a sad relapse since then. Sir Wm. Mulock said:
I think there is much in the observation of my hon. friend. The parliament of Canada has, in the past, been too careless in seizing, and usurping jurisdiction by declaring works to be for the general advantage of Canada without having some inquiry to justify that declaration.
We have been doing that and there is nothing fraught with greater danger to the maintenance of the proper relations between the provinces and the Dominion. There is nothing fraught with greater danger to the Dominion as a whole than in the parliament of Canada, with a strong hand, in defiance of fact and evidence and without justification, seizing to itself certain rights which it does not, in justice or in fact, possess, by merely making the bald declaration that the work is for the general advantage of Canada. We will have that provision eliminated from this Act. On the other hand, I ask the government at this stage to pause and consider whether some other policy, aside altogether from all technicality and keeping in view the best interests of Canada, with the object of conserving our great waterfalls for the development of the industrial interests of Canada, for the building up of enterprises within our own limits, and increasing our population and wealth should not be adopted. I would ask the government whether it is wise or expedient to permit a private corporation to have control of a great source of wealth such as this, to exploit it and to export it to a foreign land in rivalry with the industries of the people of Canada?

_ Mr. BARE. Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to detain the committee with any extended remarks on this occasion, but I would not like to see this Bill, that I consider so important to this country, pass without entering my solemn protest against the interference with the rights of the province of Ontario which is involved in the measure. I do not think that any speaker on the other side of the House contended that this Bill does not enroach upon provincial rights. I was somewhat surprised at the speech of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth). Brilliant and strong as it was thought to be and as it was, and no doubt intended as it was to make an impression on this committee, I could not help noticing that he balanced and turned one way and the other to as great an extent as it was possible for him to do. I do not believe that he liked the task imposed upon him of defending so iniquitous a Bill as this one is. The only argument that he put forward in support of this Bill was that it had passed the committee, and he said that, in having passed the committee, this House should adopt it. I think that is the most dangerous doctrine that can be put forward. It would be a severe blow to the independence of this House if we were to consider that any Bill that had passed the railway or any other committee should go through this House in the form in which it had come from the committee. That committee is only intended to investigate and inquire, but it was never intended that the consideration of a Bill by the committee should ensure its passage through this House. What are the facts in connection with this Bill? If there was ever a Bill which had passed the Railway Committee which should receive careful consideration at the hands of this House it is the Bill which we have now before us. There are a number of the members of the committee who take a deep interest in the different Bills that come before it, but I am sorry to say-and I am not speaking of one side or the other-that there is a large quantiy of voting material available when it is required. Whenever a Bill is presented which is difficult to get through the committee and this House there is a certain amount of drumming up in order to fill the back seats of the committee-the smoking department of it-and the result is that when voting time comes these members are on hand to give their votes although many of them do not know anything of the merits or demerits of the Bill. This is a Bill in which the drumming up process was in evidence to a greater extent than in regard to any Bill which we have had before the committee this session. When this - Bill was before the Railway Committee, while we pointed to the iniquitous part of it, we had only to look around and see be-Mr. LENNOX.
hind the force that could vote down our objections, no matter what arguments we employed, no matter what position we took upon this great question that we consider of the utmost importance. It was under these circumstances that a vote was not insisted upon in the committee. We said: Let the Bill go through and throw the responsibility upon them. We could scarcely get in a remark because we could not occupy five minutes without such a noise being made behind us that we could not be heard. That was the Teason why we let this Bill go through, and it was not because we did not believe it was a most iniquitous measure. We believed that when the Bill came to this House there would be such a weakening of the support of those who were promoting it that it would not be possible for the measure to pass. It is not now so iniquitous as it was when it was before the committee. At that time we were convinced that it was so flagrant an attempt to violate the principle of provincial rights that it could not pass the House, but we are free to admit that the amendment which has been proposed makes a little improvement in it. Still the Bill is one which should not pass. Our water-powers are amongst the greatest assets we have. 'We can only look forward to the time when our water-powers must supply a want which no other resource in this country can supply. It is a well-known fact that year after year fires are sweeping away our forests and that our supply of coal in the lower provinces is becoming less. Under these circumstances I think it is a most unfortunate thing that we should alienate our natural resources. In looking over the history of the parliament of Canada and that of the province of Ontario, I think my hon. friend the member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) will agree with me when I say that as far as these natural resources are concerned my hon. friend has figured largely not only in this House but in the provincial House. I well remember in the dying days of the session of 1904 a fight over the Kakabeka falls when my hon. friend and his friends secured the Tight to that water-power from another company. We thought that was unjust and unfair, and there is no doubt that my hon. friend's action then alienated a large number of voters. The responsibility of that dying government seemed to be thrown upon my hon.* friend and he was deserted by his former friends as well as the Conservatives. The result was that the action of two year3 before was reversed, and that company is now going ahead under the control of other men. Now we find my hon. friend going along a different line.


James Conmee: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member states or insinuates that

I was one of the parties interested in the Kaministiquia Power Bill. The hon. member should withdraw that. I never had any interest direct or indirect in that Power Company.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: That can scarcely be called a point of order, it is rather one of personal explanation. But I may say to my hon. friend who has the floor that it is desirable to keep as closely as possible to clause 1, the incorporation of the company.


Mr. BARR.: I think my hon. friend had charge of the Kakabeka Falls Bill; he certainly had charge of one that passed some time before that.


James Conmee: My hon. friend is wrong;
I was opposing the Bill.


John Barr: The question of water-powers has engaged attention in the past, and it is a subject that we should carefully guard. It is important to consider whether it is in the interest of the country that the province should have control of water-powers. It would appear from the success of the Ontario goverrfment in developing water-powers during the last few years that as far as possible we should leave them under provincial control. The result of the last provincial election in Ontario demonstrated that the people of that province strongly approve of the policy of the provincial government in developing water-powers and in guarding provincial rights. In the early days of the government of Sir Oliver Mowat, the Liberal party proclaimed themselves the champions of the rights of the provinces. We have to-day in Ontario a government that consistently follows the same policy and guards the rights of the province against every attempt at encroachment. I believe that it will be no longer possible to dissipate our natural resources and to give away this great asset which we are tonight endeavouring to guard. It seems unfair for the Dominion government to endeavour to encroach on the rights of provincial governments. My own view is that a large number of these questions which may give rise to friction at any time should be referred to the Privy Council in order that the rights of the Dominion and of the provinces may be more exactly defined. In the meantime before the committee an able lawyer representing the government of Ontario voiced that government's objection to this Bill, and it was evident that that government considered it of the greatest importance. Under these circumstances I submit that in passing this Bill we would not be acting in the best interests of the country. I hope the government will carefully consider this question, and that the House will vote down the Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: I wish to enter my protest against the passing of this Bill. It is of course advisable that many of these private Bills should pass, and I am glad to say that in the committees they are nearly always considered entirely independent of party. Members of each party differ among themselves and as a rule the Bills are fairly discussed, but when this Bill was before the committee it seemed that the very minute opposition was raised by members on this side it became a party measure and the whip of the Liberal party immediately rounded up all the Liberal members to vote and make this simply a party question. I feel that this is unfair, and I think that the Bill should have been treated on its merits. There are two rivers mentioned in this Bill, the Pigeon and the Nipigon. There may be some justice in stating that the Pigeon river is an international river, but the Nipigon river is entirely in the province of Ontario. When this Bill was before the committee, there was no deputation from Port Arthur or Fort William or any other place to urge the passage of the Bill as being necessary for the development of that part of the country. This Bill, if passed, will give this company power to dam the Nipigon and Pigeon rivers, which will practically give them the control of those two rivers for all time to come, because any other person who attempts to dam either of these rivers would be liable for damages. It therefore seems to me unreasonable that this parliament, even if it has the right, should legislate away such a valuable asset, when there is no call for doing so at this particular time. The Bill proposes to give these parties the right to transfer to the other side of the line one-half the power they develop. This means that they can export more than half the power, because it is also provided that they can refuse to supply less than 500 horse-power to any one person. A great many manufacturing establishments employing a great many hands would probably require not more than 200 or 300 horse-power. That provision is inserted, I believe, simply for the purpose of enabling this company to export more than half the power to the other side of the line. Had the Bill provided that all the power must be used in Canada if it could be used, a certain part of the objection I have to it would have been removed. With regard to the rates, some of the provinces have absolute control of rates, prescribing the maximum rates to be charged for power developed from any of the water-powers they grant. The water-power question is now so important to Canada that we should be careful not to give away these valuable privileges too freely. For these Teasons I

think the government should hesitate about allowing this Hill to go through during the present session. It has been up before, and no harm would be done by allowing it to stand over for another year; and as the country develops, if it is found necessary for that part of the country that this company or any other should have the right to develop water-powers on conditions that are fair and just and in the interest of the people of this country, I believe the members of this House would be unanimous in granting that right so long as the interests of the people were protected and the powers were distributed for the building up of that part of Canada, which I believe .we are all anxious to see done at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. W. R. SMYTH (East Algoma).: As *one of the members from that part of Ontario known as New Ontario, I desire to enter my protest against this Bill. If all the members of this House were as familiar with that great country as some of us who aTe sitting on this side, they would think twice before they would allow our great water-powers, which should be conserved in the interest both of the province and of the Dominion, to pass into the hands of private corporations. The government of Ontario have seen fit, after a great deal of argument and persuasion by the members from northern Ontario, to conserve those water-powers for the people; and I might just remark that they have a solid vote from that part of the province, due' no doubt to the action of the members from northern Ontario in urging the conservation of our natural resources. As this House is no doubt aware, the northern part of Ontario is considered to-day to be the greatest asset the province has-the national treasure house, as my hon. friend from West Algoma (Mr. Boyce) has called it-especially in timber and minerals; and recognizing that the only means of developing these great resources is by our water-powers, the Ontario government has been very careful during the last few years in conserving them for the people. Time and again private individuals have made application for water-poweTS, and some water-powers which have been held for years by companies incorporated under the old Ontario Act, have been cancelled by the government in the interest of the people, and they are not allowing any water-powers to pass into the hands of private corporations. I am not in a position to discuss the question of what are provincial rights and what are Dominion rights as well as some of my hon. friends who have preceded me.
My hon. friend from West Algoma, who knows the subject quite well, has gone very fully into that question, as have other hon. gentlemen who have discussed it. What I wish particularly to do is to enter Mr. J. D. REID.
my protest against the water-powers of this country being allowed to pass from under our control. I appeal to the right hon. the Prime Minister to see that our water-powers are conserved in the interests of the people, along the lines adopted by t(he Ontario government. That government did not act hastily but only after due deliberation and after many a fight in the local legislature and the committees, and after a fight to the finish, as it were, by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee). This is not the first contentious Bill which that hon. gentleman has brought before parliament. In the old days, in the local legislature, every time the hon. gentleman's name was at the foot of a Bill, we knew there was a fight on because we always found something behind the measure which we could not very well see through, and we took the precaution of knocking it on the head as a matter of prevention. I think there is something behind this Bill which we have not seen, and in my opinion, in the interests of the people of Ontario and of Canada generally, it should not be allowed to become law; and I appeal to the right hon. the Prime Minister to see that the interests of Ontario in particular and of Canada at large are served by his refusing to allow this measure to pass.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I notice there are quite a number of Bills on the Order Paper, which, in my judgment, are not of a contentious character, and could be disposed of in a reasonably short space of time; and as the present measure is likely to occupy considerable time yet in discussion, I would suggest the desirability of the committee rising, reporting progress and asking leave to sit again, and thus allow us to get on with the other Bills.


James Conmee: The hon. gentleman is not speaking to the question before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, I am asking that the committee rise and report progress in order that we may expedite business by going on with other Bills, which are of a non-contentious character and can be easily disposed of, and then resume the consideration of this measure. I suggest this proceeding to the right hon. leader of the House and would like to have his answer.


Mr. FOWKE.: I was very pleased


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Might I ask the right hon. gentleman for a reply?


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a new member, and we ought to hear him.


Frederick Luther Fowke: It is with, much pleasure indeed that I heard the tribute paid by the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House on this Bill (Mr. Reid), to the spirit in which the deliberations of the various committees of this House are conducted; and I might add that I am glad to see that he, as a leading member of the opposition, has set a splendid example in that respect. In the various committees he has shown complete freedom from partisan spirit in approaching the questions that there come before us. But I was sorry to hear him conclude his remarks by saying that the committeee which dealt with the Bill under discussion was rounded up by the whip on the government side, and that the Bill was treated by it altogether from a partisan point of view. Now, Mr. Chairman, I happen to be a member of that committee, and also a supporter of the government, and I was not one of those who was rounded up by the party whip. I was there to hear the pros and cons and to act on my judgment; I supported the measure in the committee with the view of having it brought down to the House and there discussed, and 1 told its promoter there and then that I reserved to myself the right to act as I might see fit when it reached the House. I listened very attentively in the committee to the argument advanced by Mr. Blackstock on behalf of the Ontario government; and as nearly as I can remember he did not differ materially in his expressed opinion from that given this afternoon by the hon. member the Minister of Jus-ice. That hon. gentleman told us that the question of jurisdiction would probably have to reach the Privy Council before it can be definitely and clearly settled. However, I am not troubling myself very much with the question of jurisdiction when I say that I do not feel inclined to support the Bill. It proposes to give very large powers of expropriation of provincial utilities and interest which in my judgment ought not to be granted, but there is another feature in connection with the measure to which I am decidedly opposed and shall ever be opposed and it is that of giving franchises in perpetuity of the natural resources of our country. For that reason, if for no other, I should deem it my duty to vote against the Bill. I shall not detain the House by any lengthy remarks, but I did not wish to give a silent vote. I intend to oppose the measure in its present shape for two reasons. First because it is bartering away one of the natural resources of our country in perpetuity ; and second, because it is granting expropriation powers and privileges over Ontario interests which I do not think ought to be granted. No doubt at present large volumes of water aTe going to waste, and perhaps for the present this Bill would
serve a good purpose in distributing those powers to be used in various communities in this country and the United States. I do not object to the power in the meantime being sent out of the country if need be and if the country gets paid for it; but I can readily understand that the day will come when, in all probability, we shall require all the power within the limits of our own Dominion, and I believe we would then experience great difficulty indeed, after an investment of half a million dollars had been made in a power plant, should we conclude to take hold of and administer that power ourselves. That might lead to international difficulties. At any rate when large investments are made, vested rights and interests are thereby created which it becomes very difficult to deal with, and I would rather deal with them now, before the privileges asked for are granted.


John Dowsley Reid: My authority for the statement I made was the editorial of the Toronto 'Globe.5
Mr. ARTHURS and Mr. Sproule both rose to speak.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member for Parry Sound has the floor.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will you, Mr. Chairman, allow me to make an explanation ?
I rose to address the committee on the Bill, but before proceeding with my argument I put a question to the right hon. the Prime Minister. I only resumed my seat in deference to his expressed wish that I should give way to a new member.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. member for Parry Sound has the floor and the hon. gentleman has consequently no l'ight to address the Chair.


Mr. ARTHURS.: I have no desire to take up time in discussing the constitutional question, which has been pretty thoroughly threshed out, but I wish to express my conviction that legislation, such as that now asked for, will create great confusion, particularly throughout the northern part of Ontario, and more especially if granted on the grounds urged by the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River. The principal argument used by the hon. member was that all navigable streams, including the water-powers upon them, are under the control of the Dominion government, and any stream that is navigable for any part of' its length is a 'navigable stream' according to his definition. If we accept this definition, we find many streams in northern Ontario which are navigable for a greater portion of their length than the Nipigon. For instance, there is the Mag-

anatawan, which is navigable for fifty or sixty miles in different stretches. If the hon. member's contention is right, that the Dominion government alone has power to grant water-powers on a navigable stream, the men who have located on the Maganata-wan, and have large factories established, are there illegally. The hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River, in fact, used this argument in the case of a certain power company at Niagara Palls and stated that, in his belief, they were operating illegally because operating under a charter from the legislature of Ontario.
The principal argument put forward by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Ayles-worth) was that this company should be granted this charter on the ground that they will develop electrical power for export to a foreign country. I think it will be just as reasonable to say that a company that was going to use water-power to manufacture lumber or flour for export should be given a Dominion, charter. The hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Smyth) has already called the attention of the House to the fact that these water-powers of northern Ontario are practically unknown to many members of this House, and also to the fact that the time is coming,-and, we believe, is about due-when it will be absolutely necessary that these powers be conserved for the people of those districts. These people will require these water-powers for the development of their mines and the operating of factories that will necessarily be established there. The policy of the Ontario government, so far as the water-powers there is concerned, is to grant only short leases on water-powers capable of developing more than 75 horsepower, and in all cases they reserve the right to take over these water-powers at any time. I think that the fact that this is the policy of the Ontario government is the real reason why this House is asked to pass this Bill. These men have unsuccessfully tried to get a charter from the province of Ontario, and we are asked virtually to override the decision of the Ontario authorities in regard to this water-power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Mr. Speaker, first I must thank the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) for the contempt with which he receives my suggestions-


Wilfrid Laurier: Did I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) to refer to me?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I did not answer my hon. friend's (Mr. Sproule) inquiry, it was not from want of courtesy but because I saw other members wished to speak, and I did not wish to deprive them, especially the new members, of an oppor-


James Arthurs: tunity to express their views. With regard to the suggestion that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, I must say that I am disposed to regard it favourably. We have been six or seven hours on this Bill, and it has blocked the passage of other Bills and it is evident from the temper of the House that it is very questionable whether my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee) can have his Bill this evening, if he can get it at all, because there seems to be a wide difference of opinion regarding it. Therefore, I would suggest to my hon. friend that he accept the suggestion that the committee rise and report progress, so that we can proceed with the other business of the House. In the meantime, let me say a word which may possibly contribute to clear the atmosphere. This Bill, as I understand, has been carefully considered by the Railway Committee. As a rule, so far as I am responsible for the business of the House, I have always deemed it my duty to support, as far as possible, the findings of the Railway Committee. Not that that is a law absolutely binding upon us, not that every member of the House must abdicate his judgment when the Railway Committee has spoken; but I have always thought that when a matter of importance has been discussed in the Railway Committee or any standing committee, and a conclusion has been reached, then, unless there is some strong reason to the contrary, the finding of the committee should be followed. In this instance, there is very strong reason why we should question the finding of the committee. The question of jurisdiction has been brought to the attention of the House. It has been stated and argued with great force by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) that this House has no jurisdiction, that the jurisdiction in matters of this kind belongs to the local legislature. It has been argued with no less force by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) not only that this House has jurisdiction, but that, in his opinion, this House alone has jurisdiction. At the same time the hon. Minister of Justice stated very frankly that it is only his personal opinion, it is not an opinion to be taken as law. He has stated that there is a good deal of conflict of opinion as to the right in this matter, but he gives us his opinion that this parliament has exclusive jurisdiction, and not the local legislature. In such a case, I would be disposed to follow the opinion of the Minister of Justice. But that is not the kernel of the discussion we have had at present. It matters not whether this parliament has jurisdiction, or whether the local legislature has jurisdiction, the point is this: Are there provisions in this Bill which affect the power of the local legislature and the local government? That is the only point which weighs with me. Section

2 of this Bill is a clause with which we are familiar-and it was not invented I may say to my hon friend from South Simeoe (Mr. Lennox) by the Liberal party; it is a relic of former days, and, perhaps in the case of this as in the case of other relics, we may be wrong in not doing away with them. At all events, the hon. gentleman and I may agree that it ought to be eliminated from the Bill. But the whole discussion we have heard this afternoon has been directed to one point, and one point alone-and that is that the power of expropriation of water-powers belonging to the local government of Ontario contained in this Bill should be eliminated. I think if these two sections were amended, there would not be so much objection to the Bill. I would have some objections to another which I shall come to presently. I was struck by the argument put forward by the hon. members on either side-especially that of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Smyth) that the local government of Ontario has a policy on this question reserving to themselves the exploitation of all water-powers, refusing to give them to private companies. If we pass this Bill we interfere directly with this principle; and under those circumstances, holding as I have held all my life, to the sacredness, if the word is not too strong, of provincial rights, while we have the brute power to override those rights, it is a question whether we should do so, and it is a question upon which I would invite the serious consideration of my hon. friend who is promoting this Bill. There is another feature of this Bill to which I would call his attention; that is section 13, which says:
The company shall at all times be prepared to furnish for use in Canada one-half of all power then developed.
That is to say, the power developed is divided into two parts, one-half for exportation and the other half for local consumption. I would be disposed to go much further than that, and to say that if we grant this legislation we should reserve for local consumption not only one-half but the whole of the power.


James Conmee: If the right hon. gentleman will permit me-I think section 15 provides for that; the works of this company would be subject to the electricity and Fluid Exportation Act, and this government would be in a position at any moment to stop it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then if that be the intention, I would make it perfectly clear, and say that the provisions governing the exportation of power at Niagara should govern at the Nipigon river. Therefore, if the Bill is to go through, I think it should be amended so as to make it clear that there will be no conflict between this Bill and the laws mentioned
in clause 15. But there is a serious conflict of opinion, I am afraid, with regard to the power of expropriation. On the whole, seeing that if we proceed with the Bill we shall not be able to get it through to-night, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 77>
respecting a patent of the Submarine Company.-Mr. Proulx.
On section 1,
John Dowsley Reid: Why is this patent
extended?


Mr. PROULX.: The company have not paid their fees.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it going to be the policy of the government to allow patents to be renewed simply because the owners have not paid their fees? Why, all the patents in the country could be renewed after they have been allowed to expire. The original patentees of this article have had the use of it for a number of years, and now when the fees have not been paid they come and ask for a renewal. I suppose this is under the Department of the Minister of Agriculture. I am not objecting to this Bill particularly, but this Bill may form a precedent in consequence of which any number of patentees may come along and ask for a renewal. I think the government should state their policy, whether they are going to renew patents simply because a man comes along and says that he did not remit the fees and now wants the patent continued for another term of years. The owners of this patent knew well enough when the fees were to be paid.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend has appealed to me as being the minister in charge of the administration of the Patent Act. I do not know this particular Bill.


John Dowsley Reid: How long since this patent expired?


Edmond Proulx: Since 1906.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This Bill has apparently been passed upon by the Private Bills Committee, of which I am not a member. It is the practice for the deputy commissioner of patents to go before the Private Bills Committee and make a statement with regard to each Bill. In many cases Bills of this kind come before us, in consequence practically of the negligence of the attorneys of the patentees or the owners of the patent. These delays are only for a few weeks or months. Under these circumstances it seems rather hard that the

patentee should suffer. In this case, however, apparently a much longer time has expired. I can only take it for granted that the Private Bills Committee received some information to justify the passage of this Bill and the sending of it back to this House. On the face of it I think it hardly comes within the category of the ordinary Bills which are passed by the Private Bills Committee and come before this House. Personally, long ago I took occasion before the Private Bills Committee to object to the very frequent practice of the reinstatement of patents which had lapsed through the fees not being paid. But the Private Bills Committee seem to have thought, and perhaps rightly, that where the patentee has not been himself at fault, or where the negligence has been very slight, it is rather hard to annul the patent for ever and that the punishment of forcing him to come before parliament with a private Bill and pay the necessary expenses therefor has been sufficient. In cases of a different character frequently the deputy commissioner of patents has given the Private Bills Committee information and stated the policy of the department in such a way that the Private Bills Committee have thrown out these Bills concerning patents.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: If the minister looks at clause 2 he will notice that the Private Bills Committee have made a reservation that anybody who commenced manufacturing this article since the expiry of the patent may continue to do so.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That clause is included in all these Bills to secure the rights of anybody who has acquired rights during the lapse of the patent. The only proposal, however, that can be brought forward for undertaking to treat this Bill differently from most of the Bills that come before us is that the time since the patent was allowed to lapse has been longer than in most other cases. The Private Bills Committee I think must have had some information before it which justified it in reporting the Bill, because otherwise it is not likely that it would have reported favourably to the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman who has the Bill in charge ought to give us the reasons which were given to the committee.


Edmond Proulx: A full explanation was laid before the committee. The Bill was passed without any opposition. The solicitor for the promoters of the Bill explained that no person in Canada had manufactured any of the appliances that are proposed to be manufactured under this patent. The apparatus covered by the patent is very costly and the promoters have already expended $100,000 in making this apparatus. There .have been three assignments Mr. FISHER.
of this patent. Probably that explains the omission in paying the fee.


Mr. WRIGHT.: I notice that in the preamble they give the date of the patent as the 12th November, 1900; so that this patent is nearly nine years old.


Edmond Proulx: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. It is given for six years.


William Wright: That is the date of the
patent.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Yes.


William Wright: I think that if the fees had not been paid there is not sufficient evidence before this committee to warrant it in extending its time.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The fees were paid for six years. The practice is to pay on taking out the patent for six years and then, before the expiry of these six years, to pay for another term of six years and then again for another term of six years. So that this patent was valid for a period of six years from the time it was taken out. The fees were unpaid only for a little over two years.


William Wright: If they have had a patent for nine years and this article has never been manufactured, it would seem to me that they have no claim foT an extension of time. _ I think there is perhaps too much laxness in regard to extensions of time and in regard to many matters that come before this House. The fact that it has passed the Private Bills Committee is not a sufficient reason why it should pass this House. There aTe many members of this House who are not members of the Private Bills Committee. If there is any member of this House who may be conversant with the reasons that can be advanced as a justification for renewing this patent he should give us the benefit of them. If the hon. member who is promoting the Bill has not a valid Teason why the Bill should pass perhaps some other member has. I have an intimation that there are probably a good many members that could give good and sufficient reasons why an extension of time should be granted.


Mr. GOODEVE.: As a member of the Private Bills Committee I might explain that this Bill passed unanimously for this reason:	This patent has reference to an
appliance for breaking rock under water; it is a very heavy class of machinery, and the promoter of the Bill explained to the satisfaction of the committee why the patent was allowed to lapse. They had expended a considerable amount of money in building models and showing the working of this appliance. It is done by means of a tower. They felt that there was no great work going on in Canada at that particular time that would warrant them in building the

necessary machinery and bringing it into this country. They pointed out that unless they had some protection nobody would build it because of the large amount of money involved and because of the limited opportunities of using the machinery. I have no interest whatever in it, but I am simply a member of the committee explaining why it was unanimously passed by the committee.


Haughton Lennox: I have no objection to this Bill going through if the minister thinks it ought to go through.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know absolutely nothing about the Bill except what has come up now, but I know that the Private Bills Committee generally lay a matter of this kind before the Deputy Commissioner of Patents, and I take it, from the fact that it has recommended the Bill to the House, that it was satisfied in regard to it.


Haughton Lennox: I do not rise for the purpose of trying to obstruct the passage of the Bill which may be quite right, and of course it is a matter that the minister would know more about than I would. But, I am trying to ascertain whether the company accomplishes anything by this legislation. Is there not a provision in the Patent Act that if a patented article is not manufactured within a certain limit of time the patent ceases and the right becomes public property. How would that operate here?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think in 1900, parliament amended the Patent Act by providing that patents for articles which could not be manufactured easily, that could not be kept in stock or put on the market for ordinary sale, could be placed under a special clause by which the requirement of manufacture within two years would not be operative. Judging from the description of this patent I should say it was of this character. Probably these people applied when they got their patent or immediately afterwards to be put under that clause of the Patent Act. This is likely an article that would only be manufactured to order; it may be that accounts for the negligence in the payment of fees and that a demand has now arisen for the article so that the patentee is asking to be reinstated.


John Dowsley Reid: I know nothing about this Bill but years ago the House objected very strongly to the renewal of patents in this way. If the patentee did not fulfil the conditions of the law the patent became available for public use. I presented a Bill for a renewal of a patent for one of my constituents when the fees had been mailed the day before expiry of the time, but for some reason were 24 hours late in reaching the department. The fees were not accepted and we had to prove to Sir John Thompson that the fee had been
mailed the previous day before he would consent to a renewal. Other similar cases have occurred. Here the patent has lapsed for over three years and to renew it might establish a dangerous and troublesome precedent. I have warned the minister and if he wishes to establish a precedent by allowing this Bill to pass he must assume the responsibility.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Long ago I took the ground my hon. friend is taking to-day, and objected to the reinstatement of patents. I think the practice has grown lately and every session we have Bills of this kind, although I must say I cannot remember any case where the lapse has been as long as this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I remember one case of a two year's lapse.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I know nothing of this particular patent. Under the clause I have referred to, the article must be manufactured in Canada if it is manufactured at all. Therefore if there is a demand for it in Canada it cannot be imported. I suppose the Private Bills Committee satisfied themselves that there was some justification for the long delay. If they have not done that I quite agree that the House should not grant a renewal after such a long delay.


David Henderson: I happened to be in the committee room when the committee dealt very severely with a patent renewal Bill; they threw it out unhesitatingly. A similar Bill will come before the committee perhaps at the next meeting and will be seriously contested. I do not know the merits of this case but it seems difficult to pass one application and refuse the other. I think it would be well for the minister to allow this to stand over until the other similar Bills have been dealt < with by the Private Bills Committee, so ' that this cannot be quoted as a precedent.
I am saying this as a protection to myself in connection with a vote I must give when another Bill comes up.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The precedent of renewing a patent when the trouble arises from nonpayment of fees is an old one. Each case of this kind must be decided on its merits. That is the business of the Private Bills Committee and the committee having passed this Bill I would be disposed to support it. If another Bill was rejected by the Private Bills Committee, I would be disposed to endorse their action and if the Bill was brought up by some other means in the House, I would oppose it. But this Bill seems to be quite innocent and quite satisfactory. Some hon. gentlemen opposite say that it is. I have no knowledge of it myself. I do not think that because any other Bill has been rejected by the Private Bills Committee, that is any reason why we should reject this one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have listened to discussions with regard to many Bills of this kind before the Private Bills Commission, and we have always made it a rule to have a good and sufficient reason given why the patent had lapsed before renewing it. It was generally the fault of the attorney who had instructions to renew the patent, and failed to do so. We considered it wise to insert a clause in any such Bill to protect those who had gone into the manufacture of the article, by allowing their right to manufacture to be continued. From that time on, I think every case we decided on its merits. In this case, having regard to the nature of the patent, and to the fact that the article, if built in Canada, would have to be built where it was going to be used, and that it would not be advisable for any one to build except on an order, I think we are amply justified in passing the Bill. I do not see any objection to it at all.


John Dowsley Reid: According to the statement of the minister, he never knows anything about a Bill for the renewal of a patent until it is presented to this House. When a Bill affecting any of the other departments is brought before the House, as I understand, the deputy watches it and informs the minister of the position, so that he is thoroughly posted in regard to it.	.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman did not listen to what I said. I said that it was usual for the Deputy Commissioner of Patents to be present in the committee to give the necessary information in regard to any Bill of this nature. He always brings to my notice any Bill that interferes with a patent, but a Bill which is usual he does not bring to my attention. This Bill he did not bring to my attention and therefore I take for granted that he passed it as satisfactory.


John Dowsley Reid: Would it not be expected that any Bill affecting the department would be submitted to the minister? Here is a Bill to renew a patent which has lapsed for three years. It is forming a precedent; I defy the minister to produce one case like it; and yet he says he never heard anything of the Bill until he heard of it to-night. It is a strange proceeding; yet if he wants the Bill to go through, so far as I am concerned, I have no objection.


Mr. JOSEPH TURCOTTE (Translation).: Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Private Bills Committee, and when this Bill came before the committee the principle of it had been discussed at length. The result of the discussion was the following: Mr. FISHER.
We gathered information as to whether any injustice would be done or not through the renewal of this patent. We desired to know if this patent, delivered a few years ago- in 1900, I believe-had' not, one way or another, become a public property, that is, if other companies or individuals had not availed themselves of the same invention, and put similar articles on the Canadian market. We were answered that nobody had taken advantage of the fact that this patent had become a public property. Consequently, nobody could suffer from this renewal. Under these circumstances, we have deemed this renewal to be equivalent to an original application for the patent. Advantage being taken by nobody of this invention and no similar products having been put on the market, we have considered this second application as an original one. We had contradictory discussion. The hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), who is now in his seat, will be able to give information to the House if he is willing to do so, because he took part in this discussion. It has been decided that this application for renewal was bona fide and that it should be granted under such circumstances, because there was no objection whatever to it. Subsequently another application of the same kind was made, but then it was about explosives and we answered : * This very patent the renewal of which you are now asking for, is now on the market, and we would cause considerable damage to those who are working this patent if we granted the same privileges.' That is all the difference. Accordingly, we have granted the application in one case and refused it in the other.
Bill reported.
Mr. PROULX moved the third reading of the Bill.


David Henderson: I think it would be better for the hon. member to let the third reading stand over until the next time Private Bills are called.


Edmond Proulx: For what reason?


David Henderson: In order to allow an opportunity for members to look into the Bill. There has been considerable discussion on it in committee. I do not think the hon. member will lose anything; he will get his Bill as readily.


Edmond Proulx: The amendments were only clerical.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is a Bill with amendments, and if objected to it cannot be read the third time now.


Mr. SPEAKER.: At the next sitting of the House.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
""Bill (No. 82) respecting the Monarch Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Bill (No. 95) to incorporate the Royal Guardians.-Mr. Lachance.
Bill (No. 114) to incorporate the British Colonial Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Beland.
Bill (No. 115) for the relief of Victor E. Blackhall.-Mr. Sutherland.
Bill (No. 116) for the relief of Annie L. Coltman.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 118) respecting the Anglo-Canadian and Continental Bank.-Mr. Ger-yais.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 140) respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Branch Lines company.-Mr. Miller.
Bill (No. 141) respecting the Manitoba Radial Railway Company.-Mr. Harris.
Bill (No. 142) to incorporate the Governing Council of the Salvation Army in Canada.-Mr. Miller. 1
Bill (No. 143) for the relief of Mildred Gwendolyn Platt Patterson.-Mr. Harris.
Bill (No. 144) for the relief of Charles Bowerbank Lowndes.-Mr. Wallace.
Bill (No. 145) for the relief of Isaac MooTe.-Mr. Wallace.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I suppose that we will have the budget speech to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Consolidated
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 20, 1909.