Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: I beg to lay on the Table a further telegram from the Prime Minister of Ontario, and my reply, relating to the Lake of the Woods Regulations Bill.



BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT

Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) moved:: That a message Ibe sent to the Senate to inform Their Honours that this House agrees to the request of the Senate to give leave to the proper officer of the Senate to make the necessary correction as desired in their message of the 23rd instant, respecting Bill No. 118, an Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :: A despatch in the Journal of yesterday declares that three British seamen are being detained at Grosse Isle, said to be suffering from typhus fever. Is the Government able to give the House any information on the matter?


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Immigration and Colonization has not yet arrived. I have not heard of the matter myself, but I shall ask him to deal with the question, if opportunity is given, when fee does arrive.



HEARST PUBLICATIONS IN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac) :: A resolution was passed by the Ontario Legislature at its last session, introduced by the

hon. member for Lennox county, petitioning' this Government to ban the Hearst publications from entrance to the Dominion of Canada. I wish to ask the Minister of Justice if that resolution has been received by the Government, and if so, what action if any, it is proposed to take?


Right Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: I have just come in and did not hear the beginning of my hon. friend's remarks. Did I understand him to say that the resolution had been passed by the legislature of Ontario?


John Wesley Edwards: Yes.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am strongly under the impression that it has not come to my knowledge; I think I would have recalled it if it had. I will look into the matter.



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen (Prime Minister) Bill No. 212, to amend the Dominion Lands Act, was read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 216, respecting the lake of the Woods and other waters.
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice)) : There is a resolution on the Order Paper with reference to this Bill, which has come from the Senate with one clause blank. As we have not yet discussed the resolution would it not be better to deal with that first and then go on with the Bill?
Arthur Meighen: I think the hon. member is right. I think it would be better to take up the resolution first, and then go on with the Bill.
Motion withdrawn.
House in committee on the following proposed resolution-Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Resolved, That the following provision be inserted as clause eight in Bill A6 from the Senate, entitled "An Act respecting the Lake of the Woods and other Waters," now before this House :-
"8. The expense of administering this Act and the regulations made thereunder may be paid out of any unappropriated moneys of Canada."


Mr. BUREAU:: To expedite matters, we will reserve all criticism and discussion until the Bill is in committee.
Resolution reported.


Arthur Meighen: I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee of the Whole, to be considered in connection with Bill No. 216, respecting the lake of the Woods and other waters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) thereupon moved the second reading of Bill No. 216, respecting the lake of the Woods and other waters. He said:
I would prefer to make a statement when the Bill is in committee, but if hon. gentlemen prefer, I can make it now.
Jacques Bureau: We can go
into committee providing we can then discuss the Bill as if on the second reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 2-Declaration that certain works are for the general advantage of Canada:
Arthur Meighen: This Bill succeeds a
Bill previously passed by both this House and the Senate intituled, "The Lake of the Woods Control Act." The present Bill is intituled, "The Lake of the Woods Regulation Act." On the second reading of the Lake of the Woods Control Act, I made a fairly complete statement to the House of the purpose sought to be attained by that legislation. | The 'purpose (sought to be attained by this legislation is, in effect, the same as that which was in view in the previous Bill. It is different, however, in this important particular. The previous Bill was the federal portion of concurrent legislation to be submitted to this Parliament and also to the Legislature of Ontario.
The Bill was submitted in identical form to each House, having been agreed to by the governments concerned. These Bills looked to the installation of a board to be known as the Lake of the Woods Control Board, which would have and exercise the power and authority intended to be vested in a corresponding board by this legislation. Had the concurrent (legislation passed, that board would have been a joint board, two members being appointed by the Government of Canada, and two members by the Government of Ontario. That joint board would have been empowered to make regulations to secure the ends set out in the Bill, such regulations to be confirmed by the Government of Ontario, and, as well, by the Government of Canada. Unfortunately, that concurrent legislation, while it passed this Par-

liament, did not pass the Legislature of Ontario. The Premier of- Ontario, who introduced it, I think, on March 2,-it having been introduced here on March 1- on the second reading of the Bill, some objection being raised on the part of the Opposition, immediately withdrew the measure. I received from him shortly afterwards, a telegram, and made reply thereto. Further correspondence followed, and the entire correspondence was tabled in this House very shortly after it took place. There have been two communications since that which are tabled to-day, but which contain little, if any, new matter, and one of which I believe, on the part of the Premier of Ontario, was given to the press at the time he sent it to me. The effect of the statement of the Premier of Ontario was that he had withdrawn the legislation in view of opposition to it from across the floor. He held out the hope, however, that he might re-introduce it the following session, and that in the meantime we would arrange for the continuance of a Lake of the Woods Control Board which, under the authority of joint Orders in Council, had been in esxistence since January, 1919. That brings me to the point of reviewing the circumstances leading up to the appointment of the Lake of the Woods Control Board by these joint Orders in Council of January, 1919.
The lake of the Woods, as we all know, is an international body of water of considerable magnitude in the far western portion of the province of Ontario. The waters leading into the lake of the Woods are, in great length, international streams, being the border between Canada and the United States. The outlet of the lake of the Woods is on the northern extremity. There are three outlets, the chief one being the central, known as the Norman outlet, controlled at the present time, or alleged to be controlled, by what is called the Norman dam. There are two others, one at Keewatin, on the west, and the other at Kenora power-house on the east. The main one, however, is the central, the Norman outlet. All these outlets converge into the Winnipeg river which, a stream of very considerable flow, flows into lake Winnipeg through the province of Manitoba. There is, almost at the junction of the province of Manitoba and the province of Pntario, a river flowing into the Winnipeg river known as the English river, which takes its rise in lac Seul, in the province of Ontario. It joins the Winnipeg river just below the White Dog falls. The 
lake of the Woods, ever since we had a population in Canada, has been utilized in more or less degree for navigation and fishing purposes, and as well, although this might be included in navigation, for the transport of lumber and logs. The lake of the Woods is, of course, well known also as a Canadian summer resort of the first importance. However, that fact does not necessarily enter into the merits of this legislation at all.
Now, in the waters composing the inlet to the lake of the Woods some power plants are established; I believe that the proportion of power developed to the developable power is large. At the outlet at the Norman dam, there is also a power developed, or rather a possibility of it in embryo at present, in the dam itself. Further down, in the province of Ontario, at White Dog, there is a potential power development of about 100,000 horse-power. At the inlet of the English river, that is to say, in the province of Manitoba, there is such a fall, at so many points, that the chief power properties of Winnipeg river there subsist. The developable power in Manitoba is some 500,000 horse-power; that is, if the river is controlled on the principle which I shall later on describe. There is no development at the present time at White Dog; but in the province of Manitoba, particularly at lake du Bon-nett and Point du Bois, there has been very useful, and, indeed, very important construction. What is now, and will be for many years to come, virtually the source of power, and all that power means to the. province of Manitoba, is to be found in the waters of Winnipeg river after they reach the province of Manitoba.
I have said enough to indicate that in this water basin there may be said to reside four important factors or responsibilities: first of all, it is an international body of water; secondly, having included in it the outlets, it is also interprovincial: thirdly, it is a navigation basin; and fourthly, it is the source of very large power possibilities. Because of that variety of properties in the lake of the Woods water area, the question of the control of that area arose comparatively early. Difficulty was naturally involved in it because, chiefly, of the fact that it was an international stream, and also because of the fact that along- with its navigation uses there were its power possibilities, and along with its uses for the one province, were its uses for the other. There finally evolved a reference to the International Joint Com-

mission in so far, of course, as its international features were concerned-a reference to the commission for the purpose of determining what was the proper principle of control of those waters, and how that principle could be implemented by proper authority. Canada was represented at the hearing of the case before the commission by the Lake of the Woods Technical Board which took the whole subject in hand, very thoroughly prepared the case for this country, and presented it to the court. The United States was also ably represented; but in this technical board all interests- interprovincial and otherwise, power and navigation-were gathered together, and consequently the whole Canadian case was put before the tribunal from every aspect and as a harmonious appeal. The findings of the commission were given, and the findings took care of the uses of the water basin for all purposes. That is to say, the commission fixed a principle of control. The commission recommended how a body should be created to take charge of the control, what powers should be vested in that body, within what limits it should exercise those powers, and how the different classes of damages that might ensue on either side of the boundary, or in the United States or Canada, should be discharged. That report was very satisfactory to this country, and the Government of Canada, by Order in Council, accepted it in full. The Government of the United States communicated with this Government, I think, in November last. Their communication embodied a virtual acceptance of the report as well- that is to say there was nothing in principle in the report, as we interpreted their communication, which was unacceptable to them. There were, however, certain details and certain recommendations included in the communication, but I do not think it would be pertinent to go further into those at the present time. Their communication has been replied to by the Government of Canada, and we have urged that it would not be in the interest of either country to seek to modify the report, and have pressed that it be accepted with the least possible delay.
In the meantime, however, after the report was made, there were certain enterprises that were contemplated, and indeed in some measure commenced, by private interests having to do with control of the outlets of this lake. Mr. E. W. Backus had secured control of what is called the Norman dam. He had also secured from the Government of Ontario certain rights-whether sufficiently
guarded or not I am not going to discuss at the moment-as respects White Dog falls farther down the river. He also has secured, by agreement with the town of Kenora, rights in respect of the Kenora dam. These acquirements by him-or what would be more accurately described as the Backus interests-if carried through to the point of actual construction, and if carried through to the extent that quite evidently was in the mind of Mr. Backus, would, before there could be such a thing as the acceptance of the report of the Joint Commission by the two countries, and the establishment of the board provided for by the report, lodge such vested rights in him and his interests as would put it out of the power of this country-without at least very, very great expense-to carry out its international obligations in respect of the findings of the International Joint Commission, and, as well, would have the actual effect of placing in his hands the control of levels, the control of outflow, in such degree that there would be affected interests for which alone the Government of Canada was responsible, for which alone the necessary power and authority rested in the Government of Canada to do what could be done having regard only to Canadian interests. On that account, concern was expressed on the part not only of this Government but of the Government; of Ontario, and a method was devised, by concert between the two administrations, in January, 1919, for the appointment in the meantime of a Lake of the Woods Control Board in a sort of locum tenens position-a board appointed by the two governments, two members by each, a board to be given authority to exercise, in the meantime, such control as would conserve the situation and not allow any one to acquire rights that would afterwards make it embarrassing either for the Ontario Government or, more especially for the Government of Canada upon whom alone international responsibilities rest- such control as would not make it embarrassing for these governments to carry out their obligations, and also discharge their inherent primary responsibilities as respects those waters. The Orders in Council appointing that board recited the difficulties inherent in the position of affairs as they then stood. They recited the purposes for which the board should be appointed, and in the recitals reviewed historically the varipus events that have led up to that position. The Order in Council passed by this Government was acquiesced in by the Government of Ontario. They appointed their members and helped to

form in that way a joint board in order to achieve the end sought by the Government of Canada. That board assumed its duties and has .since sought to discharge them; but in the pursuit of its duties it found that it had no statutory or solid footing, and was not clothed with powers that would enable it to conserve the interests, either of Ontario or of Canada, as those interests should be conserved; and it unanimously appealed to the two governments to place it on a statutory basis, to arm it with such weapons as would enable it to do what it was originally created to perform. I should say in this connection, that the appeal of the board in this regard was not only well founded' but was acquiesced in by the two administrations. The appeal, I said before, was unanimously made by ail four members of the board, and perhaps at this point it would be of .interest to know who they were. The Dominion representatives were Mr. W. J. Stewart, of the Department of External Affairs, and Mr. J. B. Challies, of the Water Powers Branch of the Interior Department. The Ontario representatives were Mr. L. B. Rorke-whose office I do not recollect-and Mr. H. G. Acres, chief engineer of the Hydro-Electric Commission.


Jacques Bureau: I did not catch exactly what the Prime Minister said about the attitude of the board in regard to the appeal tnat was taken.


Arthur Meighen: No; I said the members appealed to their respective governments to clothe them with statutory authority so that they could actually do what they were designed to do by the Orders in Council. I might say in this connection that in the course of their work they sought to exercise, by virtue of the authority of legislation of Ontario, certain control over the watems .of the Winnipeg river. They thought that under the Rivers and Streams Act of Ontario there was lodged in the Government of Ontario the power-which, of course, if it had it could devolve upon this board-so to control the flow of the Winnipeg river at the Norman dam and farther down as would effect their purpose. They appealed to the Government of Ontario to clothe them with power under the authority of that Act. The Government of Ontario, however, upon investigation, and, I believe, upon inquiry of eminent counsel -and I know that inquiry was made by the Dominion's representatives upon the board-were advised that the Ontario Rivers and Streams Act, in so far as it was

designed to enable the Government of Ontario to control the levels of the Norman dam and the Winnipeg river, was ultra vires of the province of Ontario, for the reason manifestly that the control of levels having to do with navigation was a function of the Parliament of Canada.
Having sought to get authority there, and having failed, they then appealed to each government to clothe them with authority by concurrent legislation that would enable them to do their work, because in the meantime applications were being made for certain construction works involving necessarily a measure of control, and for certain diversions involving necessarily also a measure of control, and generally very pushing enterprises were being launched which only needed to be advanced very 'little to embarrass seriously the control which was so desirable, indeed, so essential. The appeal, as I said, met with a favourable response on the part of both governments. It was recognized on the part of the Government of Canada that while international responsibilities were ours, and ours alone,-that while for example, if those in control of the Norman dam should raise the level of the lake of the Woods, and thereby cause damage in the state of Minnesota, it was no sufficient answer for us to say to the people of Minnesota, that those damages were incurred by Mr. Backus or his interests; we were answerable because that was an international obligation. The Government of Canada recognized also that its responsibility had not only that foundation, but as well had the foundation of navigation-.that undoubtedly the lake of the Woods was a navigable water used as such continuously, that undoubtedly also the Winnipeg river was a navigable stream, declared so, indeed, by the Court of Appeal of the province of Ontario; and that undoubtedly as well a third factor in our responsibility was that this country was the custodian and, indeed, the owner of the water-powers of the Winnipeg river below the boundary of the province of Ontario.
The Government of Ontario recognized those truths. And the Government of Canada recognized as well that it could not deny the proprietary rights of the Government of Ontario in respect of water-powers in the river in the province of Ontario. I am not saying that that right is wholly impregnable by virtue of judicial decisions, but for the purpose of discussing the merits of this Bill it may just as well be

assumed. That being one of the responsibilities of Ontario, it was felt that the interests of all could be served by means of a joint board on a solid, permanent and unassailable foundation. Therefore the legislation that passed this House, and that failed concurrently to pass the Legislature of Ontario, was introduced. Had it passed the Legislature of Ontario, we would now have had a joint board deriving its powers concurrently from the Dominion and province, its regulations subject to the approval of the two governments, exercising that degree of control over the levels and outlets of the lake of the Woods water area that essentially must be exercised publicly in the interest of this country. That legislation failed. Consequently there is no board, nor is there anybody in a position to exercise that control on behalf of the public that is so essential.
Now, in this connection I am not seeking in any way to minimize the importance of power development. The proportion that that importance bears to the entire problem is very great indeed. But in that connection we must not forget that in the province of Manitoba by far the major degree of development exists; and the development there is, I might say, infinitely more vital to that province than it is to any similar development in Ontario. While I say that, I do not suggest that we can in the least degree ignore the rights of Ontario in respect of development there. Indeed, what we seek to do by this legislation, and what we sought to do, but abortively, by the concurrent legislation that preceded it, was so to control the waters as to achieve both for Ontario and for Manitoba their maximum use.
That being the case, I want at this point to discuss in a little detail the principle of control that is embodied in this legislation and that was embodied in the last. _ The International Joint Commission said, in its findings in respect of navigation, that the waters of the lake of the Woods should, if possible, be kept always between two certain levels, namely, 1061-5 geodetic sea level datum, and 1056; that while it was so kept the interests of navigation would be fully conserved; and that between those levels it would be serving to the maximum the interests of power. However, the commission's findings also took account of the possibility that there might be times when the waters could not be kept below the higher level nor above the lower level, and while the interest of the United States in
respect of those levels was an interest derived from navigation alone, they sought to keep it between that maximum and that minimum, and then were satisfied, to say, in effect: We will allow your board to be in control, but when the level gets above on the one hand or below on the other, then navigation is so affected that a joint board, on which the United States is represented, must be in charge of affairs.


Mr. EULER:: May I ask the Prime Minister a question? Would not the individual states adjoining the boundary have power rights so far as the level was concerned?


Arthur Meighen: They have no power
rights after the waters reach the lake of the Woods; but there are power rights in the international waters flowing into the lake of the Woods in which course they have rights and responsibilities. _
So the International Joint Commission, having disposed of that matter, which appertained both to power and navigation, but primarily to navigation, went on to define, after the most thorough inquiry, upon wnat principle the outflow of the lake of the Woods should be controlled. They said: Keep it within those levels, and in Keeping it there allow the water to flow out in such measure and at such a rate as to secure what is known to engineers as the highest dependable flow. The commission also considered another principle, the principle of intermittent flow. But after, I say, the most thorough investigation and after receipt of all the evidence the commission determined that the correct and sound principle to adopt, having regard to all considerations of every kind, was the principle of the highest dependable flow. Now, the Government of Canada have adhered to that report and that finding. Unless, therefore it wants to express an opinion antagonistic to the report, it is the duty of the Government and of the Parliament of Canada to see that everything is done that can be done toward putting us in a position to maintain for all time the finding of the commission adopting the principle of the highest dependable flow. Consequently there is embodied in the Bill this direction to the Lake of the Woods Control Board to be created under it: You are commissioned to maintain the levels on those waters as found to be best by the International Joint Commission. You are commissioned as well to control the outflow of those waters according to the principle upon which the International Joint Commission has placed its imprimatur. Now,

the legislation failing in Ontario, the position of the Government of Canada was this: Until the findings of the commission were accepted by the government of the United States and legislation was passed on either side ratifying the treaty to be based thereon; until that time should come -and it might come at no very early day-we were faced: with [the qujestion whether we would ourselves step in and hold the situation in the meantime-having the right to do so by reason of our responsibility, internationally and in respect of navigation, and as well in respect of the rights of the province of Manitoba -or whether we should quietly walk away and leave the matter to be taken care of by Mr. Backus on the one hand and the tender mercies of such an agreement as the province of Ontario might make, on the other. I do not know what agreements might be made. I do not know how far ne might go, or how far he might be permitted to go. I do not know what might be done, but I know what legally could be done, and in respect of which, without legislation, we could not interfere. Knowing that, it was my judgment * 'n this the Government concurred and we now^ submit it to Parliament for its ratification-that we could not abandon the situation; that we should be armed with the authority of Parliament to take care of and to control the levels of the lake of the Woods and the outflow of the lake in the meantime, basing the principles of that control upon the findings of the International Joint Commission. That it is our duty so to control there can be no doubt; as to how we .should control there may be some question. But I do submit that as we have accepted the findings of the commission-findings which, having regard to all interests, we believe to be right-then while we are controlling we ought to adopt the principles that the commission recommended; we could not very well justify any variation of them. Therefore this Bill is introduced.
It may be asked: Why does the Bill place the board in control of the waters of the English river to the extent that it does? Now, I said a while ago that the findings of the commission provided that the waters constituting the outflow of the lake of the Woods should be controlled on the dependable flow principle. But if the dependable flow principle is best, as undoubtedly it is, and should prevail, it can only prevail if the waters of the English river are controlled on that principle as well. It would be futile, it would be JMr. Meighen.]
abortive, to seek to apply the dependable flow principle to the waters of the Winnipeg river and then abandon the waters of the English river to the control, say, of some board or some authority which might adopt the intermittant flow principle. If that were done it would be useless to seek to apply the findings of the International Joint Commission to the Winnipeg river. That is to say-and I think it is not very hard to understand-while we might have the highest dependable flow in the Winnipeg river flowing out of the lake of the Woods, if. the waters of the English river, an immense stream, are to be controlled upon any other principle, then immediately they reach the waters of the Winnipeg river, the principle of the dependable flow is destroyed and the water-powers below are virtually in the position of the water-powers of the English river. If the dependable flow principle were abandoned the effect would be that instead of having a 500,000 horse-power development on the Winnipeg river below the province of Ontario, there would be a reduction to 250,000 horse-power, an amount wholly inadequate even for the purpose at this moment in view. It would, in a word simply knock from under the province of Manitoba the whole basis of its power development. I do not think that anything more need be said to justify the course pursued, save this: there can be no doubt that the waters of lac Seul- which, indeed, have been so for many years -and also the waters of the English river, are undoubtedly navigable waters. There is the same reason for holding them to be navigable waters that there is for holding the waters of the Winnipeg river to be navigable waters, and those waters have been so held by the Court of Appeal of the province of Ontario. Therefore the basis of our authority is undoubted. We do not, though, for a moment dispute that the powers on the Winnipeg river are powers in the province of Ontario, and we regret indeed that Ontario has abandoned the situation for the time being and has refused to join with us in joint control so that all interests might be conserved. We regret that very much, but because it is our desire that there be joint control rather than a single control on the part of this Parliament or of any body created by this Parliament, we place in the Bill a clause which provides in effect that when Ontario passes the legislation introduced this year, or legislation to that effect, the Governor in Council may, when the two measures

go into effect and the board is created thereon, repeal or suspend the legislation that we now submit to Parliament. That is to say, this legislation is intended to take care of responsibilities pending the concurrence of Ontario in the principle of joint control. The clause providing for such repeal or suspension-and I hope I .shall be pardoned if I anticipate that clause and pass in review the entire Bill -provides also that notwithstanding that repeal or suspension any works constructed in the English river or in the Winnipeg river or at the point of outflow of either shall be continued as works for the general advantage of Canada pursuant to the declaration embodied in this Bill. The reason for that is this: the waters of the English river are substantially interprovincial waters. It is true that the river ceases to be called the English river when it reaches the Winnipeg river, but its waters flow right on into lake Winnipeg. In fact, it is an interprovincial stream in every sense, no matter how you describe it. Being an interprovincial stream upon which large water-powers exist, the works upon it require to be works in which the whole people of Canada-or at least the people of the two provinces-are concerned. Now, as to the purpose of inserting in the British North America Act a provision authorizing the Parliament of Canada to declare works to be for the general advantage of Canada and making that authority entirely _ unrestrained-the purpose of that provision applicable to works in one province in which another province necessarily had an interest, in the control and operation of which another province was vitally concerned, was to enable the joint interests of both to be no longer the subject of disputes or controversies between the two but to be taken care of by an authority that had an equal interest in both. On account of that we feel that we are basing our request upon the undoubtedly common interest of both parties, when we ask that these wTorks, being works in which both are concerned and over which both should have authority, should continuously remain works for the general advantage of Canada.	_
I have given at some considerable length the reasons for this legislation that is now before the committee; I have gone over it virtually clause by clause, and I submit the Bill to the committee and to the House with this last word. There is not, on the part of the Government of Canada, the least
desire to invade the rights of any province of this country. No better evidence could be given of reluctance on the part of this Government or of this Parliament to invade provincial rights, than the evidence that, while we had paramount authority in the first place to go in and control, because international obligation is the first basic responsibility and navigation rights are the next responsibility and both are paramount to provincial rights, we did not do so. We recognized the rights of Ontario and Manitoba, very important rights, perhaps, in point of commercial magnitude greater than the other two rights, though in point of law inferior to both, and we sought by joint action to take them with us in this control. It is only because, through no fault of ours, but entirely through the fault of the Government or the Legislature of Ontario-I do not care where the blame is placed, but I think it is chiefly on the shoulders of the Premier of Ontario by reason of his failure to carry through the joint legislation-we are compelled to take the position which we are taking now to ask that Parliament vest us with authority to serve the interests of both provinces and the whole country until we are able to effect the joint legislation for which we strove in the first place.


Mr. PARDEE:: I have listened, as I
always do, with great respect to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen). There is much legislation brought down in this House, some of it more important than others, some affecting great interests, some of more or less local character; but I think that a question such as this should have been brought down at an earlier period of the session. I contend, and I think most hon. members on this side will contend, that though the Prime Minister may disclaim any intention of this legislation being a direct blow at provincial rights, that will certainly be the effect of this measure. Taking into consideration the fact that Parliament was almost ready to prorogue last Saturday and that from day to day it is looking for prorogation almost at any time, let me repeat again, that it is a most remarkable thing to bring down at the present time such legislation as is set forth in this Bill. As the Prime Minister said, Bill D was brought down first in the Senate and then in-3 p.m. troduced in this House as Bill No. 23. That Bill provided certain things, but it had nothing ulterior about it in any way; it was founded only and solely upon the fact that there was

The average level which would have prevailed during the same period of years, if the outlets had remained as in a state of nature, is 1,056.77, or practically three feet lower.
If that is correct, there is no very particular need at this time for the Dominion Government to take the step it proposes. I sumbit that navigation rights are not being interfered with, and it has not been shown by anything the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen), has said that in the near future, within any reasonable time after the agreement might be made between the two Governments, navigation would be any greater than it has been since 1876. I therefore think that there is no necessity for this legislation. Everything points to the fact that the rights of all parties concerned have been safeguarded, and that things as they are at present have been absolutely satisfactory to those people who are most interested. The present Board of 'Control was appointed under an agreement between the two Governments, and the facts and figures submitted by the International Waterways Commission prove beyond doubt that this board has been amply sufficient to take care of every need that might exist. Consequently there is not such tremendous hurry for this drastic legislation that it could not stand for another year until the meeting of the Ontario legislature, when concurrent legislation could be passed. The report of the International Waterways Commission,
I submit, absolutely shows that the water is being properly taken care of. What, then, is the necessity for this legislation?
I do not personally believe, and I doubt whether the people of the province of Ontario believe, that it arises from international complications, or that it is needed to meet navigation necessities. After all, the waters with which this Bill is concerned eventually flow into and become part of the Winnipeg river, the lower part of which flows into lake Winnipeg. From lake Winnipeg the power developed is taken to the city of Winnipeg. Now, the whole milk in the cocoanut appears to me to be altogether different from what the Prime Minister would have us believe, and I cannot divest my mind of this belief, no matter how sincere the Prime Minister may be. This legislation is not due to any international complica. tions, and it is not for marine or navigation purposes. Perhaps we cannot blame the Prime Minister altogether for the purpose which prompts this Bill. He is only human, but you have to be more than 
human to be Prime Ministetr of a great Dominion like this; you must be so entirely inhuman as to be impartial to your own province and must legislate for all the provinces of the country according to their rights. I contend that the whole purpose of this Bill-I say this with all respect-in spite of any arguments which the Prime Minister may advance to the contrary, the whole sum and substance, the whole aim and object of the Bill, is to furnish power to Winnipeg and the large interests in Winnipeg which demand it of the Prime Minister.
Why do I say that? Let me refer again to the report. This document says that there is a fall of 20 feet at the Norman dam, which is the one mentioned by the Prime Minister as the governing factor in this matter; and a fall of 291 feet in the Winnipeg river. There is also a fall in the White Dog rapids of 45 feet. Let me say, in passing, that the,Norman dam and the White Dog rapids are situate entirely with in the province of Ontario. So that if there is a fall of 291 feet in the Winnipeg river, and a fall of 45 feet in the White Dog rapids, which is in Ontario, subtract the fall in the Wbite Dog rapids from the fall in the Winnipeg river, and you have a fall in the Winnipeg river of 246 feet. Now, 246 feet I think everyone will agree, is quite sufficient, to develop an enormous water-power. That being so -and I am taking the word of the commission for it-I want to know why the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg, do not, at their own expense, develop their own water-power on this 246 feet on the Winnipeg river, and leave the province of Ontario with its own water-powers intact? But the city of Winnipeg is interested; the Winnipeg Electric are interested. The Winnipeg Electric want the most dependable flow, and they are, let me say, very strong friends of the present Government, and must be attended to.^ When you come down to the last analysis of the situation therefore, you find1 that there is sufficient waterpower on the Winnipeg river for development to satisfy all the needs of the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg, and I contend strongly that the reason they do not develop it is purely and simply the fact that they desire to be rid of the enormous cost that would be entailed in the development of that waterpower, and want to fake advantage of the moneys that have been spent by private interests in Ontario in developing the

water-power which they now seek to control. No matter what the right hon. the Prime Minister may say to the contrary, I venture to assert that you could not go to any place in Ontario and convince the people that the fact is otherwise than as I have stated.
Why, Sir, in the early days there was an issue between the province of Ontario and the Dominion Government in what is known as the Boundary Award, which was fought out to the bitter end and by that doughty old patriot, Sir Oliver Mowat, who opposed Sir John Macdonald tooth and nail. The Dominion Government has been casting envious eyes upon the great hinterland of the province of Ontario, rich beyond all dreams, in minerals, timber and water powers, and Sir John Macdonald made one of the most determined attempts he ever made in his life to get possession of that territory for the Dominion. The Ontario Government rightly contended that the ownership was vested in the province. The fight was waged in the courts, and the issue finally went to the Privy Council, who upheld absolutely the contention of the province, and as a result the title to those minerals, timber and water powers was vested in Ontario. To-day we see repeated an attempt by this Government to get something which does not rightfully belong to them, thus acting in accordance with the old Tory tradition. To-day we see being re-enacted, as vividly and as realistically as in former times, the struggle between the Dominion and the province of Ontario. Once more the fight which was waged at the time of the Boundary Award is being fought over again. No matter what amount of camouflage and sweet words may be used in order to try and disguise the issue, this is an absolute attempt on the part of the Federal Government to try and filch from the province of Ontario what rightfully and lawfully belongs to it. This Bill isnot merely a measure for the regulation of water-powers, it is more than that. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to abrogate the common law right of property in provincial waters and create a new and artificial right. Its purpose is to subtract from the value of certain waters and to add to the value of other waters by the direct and simple process of statutory enactment. This is being done, not in the interest of Canada, not in the interest of the province of Ontario, but with an eye solely to the watershed of the Winnipeg river. The entire injury would be wrought to water-powers in Ontario, and to riparian rights
therein; the benefit would result to the province of Manitoba. I maintain that by this legislation you are taking away from the province of Ontario the common law right to control her waters and her water powers, a thing which this Parliament has no right to do under the British North America Act. Sir, the Prime Minister of Canada seems to have a bogey in the person of Mr. Backus constantly before him. I am not here to hold any brief for that gentleman; I fancy from all that I have read he seems able to take care of himself. Be that as it may, I am not championing his cause or otherwise, but I say this: Even though you admit-which I do not-that Mr. Backus may be a menace to the province of Ontario and perhaps may do something that will not be wholly in its interests, the Premier's argument as to the interests which are at stake here is utterly and absolutely fallacious. The question involved is one with which the province of Manitoba has absolutely nothing to do. The Dominion Government has not given to Manitoba its natural resources, therefore this is not a squabble between Ontario and Manitoba; it is a dispute solely between the Dominion and Ontario.
The Prime Minister of Canada has said that concurrent legislation was not passed by the province of Ontario. That is very true. What was the reason for that? I do not know. It is a fact, however, that concurrent legislation was not passed by the provincial legislature as was contemplated under Bill D. Since 1918 there has been a Board of Control appointed by both Governments, two members from each, taking care of and regulating the flow of water in Rainy river, lake of the Woods, and the waters adjacent thereto. That board has been absolutely satisfactory to all concerned. There have been conferences and a good deal of ^correspondence between the present Premier of Ontario and the leader of the Dominion Government, with regard to the question at issue, and at least one gentleman came here representing the Government of Manitoba. During the whole of the correspondence which took place the province of Ontario never at any time abandoned one jot or tittle of any right it may have. So far as the Government of Ontario were concerned they sedulously maintained the fact that they were the paramount authority to be reckoned with. It was very plainly evident to my mind that even if this concurrent legislation was not passed by the Ontario Legislature there was in the mind of the Dominion Premier

an idea that he might still come to some conclusion which would be satisfactory to all parties either by conferences or correspondence with the Premier of Ontario. Even as late as April 28, last, we find in the correspondence which has been brought down this letter:
Right Hon. Arthur Meighen,
Prime Minister,
,	Ottawa, Ont.
In view of the fact that the Lake of the Woods Control Bill was opposed last night in the House by the Liberal Opposition and the Conservative opposition as well as from the Government side it was found inadvisable to press second reading under circumstances that pointed to the probable defeat of the measure.
In withdrawing the Bill I made the announcement that if then desired it would be reintroduced next session. I respectfully urge that in the meantime the present control arrangement be continued and assure you of the thorough co-operation of this Government to ensure the best results for all the interests involved.
E. C. Drury.
In answer to that on April 29 the Prime Minister wrote the following letter:
Dear Mr. Drury,
I have your telegram of yesterday. I regret very much indeed that the Lake of the Woods Control Bill is not to he passed by the Ontario Legislature this session. It has already passed both Houses of the Federal Parliament.
Now I ask the committee to listen to this:
I will take up the matter of continuing the present Control Board with the Minister of the Interior and can assure you that we will endeavour to do so if same can be effectively done.
Faithfully yours,
Arthur Meighen.
The very position that the right hon. gentleman would in all fairness have taken, and I have not the slightest doubt that it is the very position he did take until the pressure became too great. Then we have later on-showing the efforts to come to some compromise-a telegram from the Hon. Mr Drury, which reads as follows:
Newspapers report 'the introduction of Government legislation declaring all structures in the Lake of the Woods waters to be for the general advantage of Canada and bringing them under Federal control. I gathered from your letter of April 29th that you proposed to continue the present control hoard and therefore do not understand proposed action. Any effort to take control of the waters and water-powers of this province further than is necessary for the purposes of navigation will be strongly resisted by our people and will he considered by them to be an unwarranted invasion of the provincial domains by the Federal authorities.
So far as Mr. Drury is concerned he has, at least up to the present, taken it for granted that the Prime Minister would do as was practically done some considerable 
time ago, would carry on the same arrangement under the same circumstances and would a'.low the present Board of Control to act and not introduce this present legislation.
Then Mr. Hudson made a report-


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon.
gentleman should read my reply to that telegram.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What date is that?


Arthur Meighen: May 26.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I have not the right
hon. gentleman's telegram of the 26th. I do not intend to take advantage of that at all, and if he will send it across I shall be glad to read it, it is only fair that it should also go on record. Here is the .telegram, dated Ottawa, May 26, 1921, in these words:
Hon. E. C. Drury,
Premier of Ontario,
Toronto.
The Bill respecting the Lake of the Woods referred to in your telegram of May 25th proposes no more than to take power to exercise the undoubted jurisdiction of the Dominion in respect both of navigation and of our international obligations. Further there is a clause providing that if the Ontario legislature enacts the legislation referred to in the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act passed earlier this Session the force of the present Bill may be suspended. Unless we adopt this Bill the position resulting from failure of Ontario legislature to adopt the legislation agreed upon this year is that there may be no means effectively to protect great public interests and that the responsibilities of Dominion Government in respect of a great navigable water system and of our international engagements may be at the mercy of purely private interests. This is a position for which we are not prepared to take responsibility.
Arthur Meighen.
That is exactly what the right hon. gentleman said to-day. I contend that nothing could be more fallacious than the statement that if the Ontario Legislature enacts certain legislation we will go back to the old status quo. Section 10 of this Bill provides:
If the necessary legislation of Ontario referred to in the preamble of the Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921, be enacted by the legislature, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation published in the Canada Gazette repeal or suspend this Act and the regulations made thereunder-
That is absolutely permissive and may or may not be done as suits the Government which may be in power at that time. That section also provides:
Provided that notwithstanding any repeal or suspension of this Act .in the manner provided by this section the works and each of them hereby declared to he for the general advantage-

of Canada shall remain and continue to he works for the general advantage of Canada.
In other words, Sir, you give with one hand and you take back with the other, and you leave the donee absolutely nothing.
Now let me continue my argument as to what efforts had or had not been made by the province of Ontario and the Dominion, tut more especially by the province of Ontario, in order that this matter might be amicably settled without any prejudice to the rights of the province of Ontario. In that connection I will read the letter of May 27, 1921, from Mr. E. C. Drury to the Right Hon. Mr. Meighen:
With reference to your telegram of yesterday re Lake of the Woods I feel it my duty to remind you again of your promise contained in your letter to me of April 29th as follows: "X will take up the matter of continuing the present Control Board with the Minister of the Interior and can assure you that we will endeavour to do so if the same can toe effectively done." There is absolutely no reason to believe that the present control cannot toe effectively continued. This Government is in a position to assure you that-pending the execution of the White Dog lease under the terms of which the control of the Norman Dam will toe permanently established-it has an undertaking that the present control will not be disturbed toy the private Interests involved.
That is pretty strong. Premier Drury lays it down on his responsibility as the head of that great province that they have assurance that the present control will not be disturbed by the private interests involved.
In view of your undertaking and the firm position we have taken regarding control of the Lake of the Woods, the contention now advanced that control is in jeopardy is unwarranted and is, I submit, no justification of your proposed legislation which attempts to dispossess this province of its constitutional authority over its water-powers. I draw your attention to the fact that this Government has not been consulted i-n the matter of this drastic action that we have had no opportunity to see the proposed Bill and that we are prepared to co-operate with the Dominion, as we have been doing to ensure that the interests of navigation will toe amply safeguarded.
Could anything be more absolutely explicit in asserting that Premier Drury, on his responsibility as Premier of Ontario, is willing to give every undertaking that so far as the waters in that region are concerned to-day things will go on as they have done in the past, that the waters will remain at the same level as they have remained at for the last ten or fourteen years, anti that as a consequence no person who requires the use of those waters will be in the slightest degree prejudiced. I submit that nothing could be stronger or more explicit than that. Then, what further does he say?
Tour contention that failing your legislation international engagements will toe at the mercy of private interests is, I submit, lacking in frankness because no such engagements have yet been ratified and because there are means of controlling the private interests involved. I am therefore compelled to ask you not to proceed with the Bill which is unnecessary and unjustifiable invasion of the rights of Ontario.
I ask again, could language be stronger or more explicit than this language used by one holding the responsible position of Premier of the province of Ontario? Then there is a telegram-I am sorry to have to detain the committee, but I wish to put these things on record-from the right hon. Prime Minister to E. C. Drury, dated May 28, 1921. I quote:
Your telegram May 27th respecting Lake of the Woods. My statement of April 29th that we would endeavour continue present means of control was, as your telegram itself shows, conditional upon question whether such means would toe effective.
I submit with all deference that that is a rather far-fetched conclusion.
As I have already pointed out we regard their effectiveness as being so doubtful that we cannot take responsibility of relying upon them.
They have been quite effective for many years.
I pointed out before, and your telegram now confirms it, that the only existing basis upon which control can toe founded is some engagement with private interests to which the Dominion is not even a party.
Why should the Dominion be a party, I want to know? When shall it be said that a province may not deal with its own natural resources as it sees fit-in this case, so long as the flow of water below the dam is not interfered with?
Even if it were a party we could not regard this, in view of all the circumstances and importance of interests at stake, as a satisfactory basis upon which to rest our responsibility in respect of navigation and our international engagements. Your own agreement earlier this year to concurrent legislation constitutes in itself recognition of inadequacy of existing basis and of necessity of remedy.
Not necessarily, I argue. They were quite ready and quite willing to pass enabling and concurrent legislation. The only reason why there should be concurrent and enabling legislation was the fact that the commission did not have the power to carry its decrees into effect. I will admit all that, if it is any comfort to my right hon. friend. But I want to point out further that there was absolutely no reason to doubt the wisdom of what they were doing.


Arthur Meighen: They could not do anything.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: But they did.


Arthur Meighen: Very little.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The right hon. gentleman may say that it is very little, but so far as that is concerned there was very little to he done. The great point made by my right hon. friend is that the commission contemplated by this Bill is necessary to keep the levels as they ought to be kept. The fact remains that the present board, which was appointed in 1918, has acted and is acting satisfactorily.


Mr. CRERAR:: May I ask my hon. friend a question, there, just for information? The Norman dam has now passed into the hands of private interests. Suppose those private interests determine to raise or to lower the Norman dam, has the commission to which my hon. friend has just referred any power to control that? What penalties could they impose, for instance, on the present owner of the Norman dam if he raised or lowered the level of the lake?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Well, I take it that if the level of the Norman dam were raised or lowered to such an extent as to be detrimental to the water-powers lower down, they would have the right to pro-. ceed against the person responsible.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What right would they have?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: They would have the
right of action.


Mr. KEEFER:: The Norman dam could not be raised -or lowered at will as my hon. friend suggests. There is power in chapter 115 of the Revised Statutes of Canada to control that dam.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The Protection of Navigable Waters Act, Part 1, section 4, says: No bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau shall be constructed so as to interfere with navigation, unless the site thereof has been approved by the Governor in Council, nor unless such bridge, boom, dam or aboiteau is built and maintained in accordance with plans approved by the Gov-, ernor in Council.
Now, Sir, I continue the reading of this telegram. It says:
In view of the results and of fact that we can expect no further co-operation from your Government-
In view of the correspondence which passed surely the Prime Minister could not reasonably say that he could hope for no further co-operation. Every line and every syllable of the correspondence so far as the province of Ontario is concerned indicates 
a willingness to co-operate in the fullest possible manner.
-now that the Ontario Legislature has prorogued, it is impossible to understand what useful purpose could have been served by further consultation on the present situation. Your concluding observation that my telegram was lacking in frankness is sufficiently surprising in itself. It is the more so in that its context discloses a complete misconception of tihe nature of the international obligations here involved-Under the existing Treaty of January 11, 1909, the Dominion has obligations in respect of freedom of navigation, maintenance of levels, and the prevention of injury on the other side of boundary waters. That is a responsibility solely of Dominion and purpose of present Bill is to make it quite certain that Dominion Government shall not be powerless to exercise that responsibility. In this and other respects We have proceeded throughout on the advice of law officers of the Crown. In the circumstances %ve have no other course than to proceed with the Bill which invades no rights of the province and which is essential to adequate exercise of Dominion jurisdiction.
Arthur Mbighen.
I leave this phase of the matter, Mr. Chairman, at that; I do not propose to labour it further. But in this connection I wish to read the following paragraph from the report of the International Joint Commission:
The average controlled level of the lake of the Woods between 1892 and 1916 was 1,059.82. The average level which would have prevailed during the same period of years, if the outlets had remained as in a state of nature is 1,056.77 or practically 3 feet lower. Ordinary high water from the viewpoint of the rights of the riparian owners, is dependent upon the level which prevails during the planting, growing and harvesting season. For the purpose of this report, we have adopted the mean of all levels above the average summer level prevailing between June 1 and'September 30 as mean or ordinary high water. On the basis of comparison of ordinary high water the recommended level of 1,061.25 is 2.23 feet higher than the computed natural leve1 of the lake.
It will be seen, therefore, from the report itself that the level of the lake has not been so interfered with as to prejudice international rights in any way; the navigation of these waters has not been prejudiced in the slightest. I repeat again that all these matters have been amply and satisfactorily handled.
I had commenced, when asked a question, to give a slight resume of the Hudson report. As I understand the matter, the Hon. Mr. Hudson, at the request of Manitoba, came to Ottawa to represent that province on the hearing of this case. Subsequently Mr. Hudson sent in a report. I do not propose to read it all, but he says this:
The question on which I anticipated the most difficulty was the casting vote on the

Board. The Ontario people felt that they Should have predominance to deal with waterpowers within the province.
I quote that only to show that the people of Ontario have at all times stoutly maintained that those water-powers were theirs and theirs alone.
Let me for a few minutes deal with one or two legal aspects of this Bill. I want to draw the attention of the committee to clause 2, which reads:
All dams, structures and other works of whatsoever description which have heretofore been or may hereafter be constructed in, upon, over, about or across-
I contend that that clause is not good because it is not specific. Any legislation brought down toy the Government in regard to this matter should show what dams are to toe constructed and what water-powers are to be affected by those dams. It must show specifically just what the Dominion Government propose to do. They have no right to put in an omnibus clause allowing them to have jurisdiction wherever they may desire. Only last week the British Columbia Electric case
4 p.m. was being argued in the Supreme Court, and the judges, although they had not given their decision, were inclined to pay considerable attention to the fact that there was involved in that case the very point that I am to-day arguing. One of the counsels said that it was a guessing contest, and the judges seemed to agree with that. I, therefore, say, first, that this clause is not good because it is not specific. Further, I doubt if the Dominion Government have any jurisdiction except over the actual physical structures that may be put up. They may have the right to say what is the height or width of a dam, where it may be located and so forth, but the fact that they may have the right to do that does not give them the right to control the waters of the province of Ontario. It is a moot point, even in the matter of navigation, whether they can go any further than that or not.
To show what widespread interest there is in the matter; to show how deeply the people of that section of the country are interested in this legislation; to show with how much fear they regard any such legislation, I want to read just one or two clauses from " an open letter to the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, M.P., P.C. and to the hon. members of Parliament for Ontario constituencies," which I find in the Toronto Mail and Empire, of April 25,1921. The letter reads:
The people of Kenora district and of northwestern Ontario respectfully urge thalt you defer further action on the Bill designed to transfer the rights of the province of Ontario over her water powers to the province of Manitoba.
If the Bill becomes law, the waterpowers in this part of Ontario will be seriously curtailed and industrial and commercial development severely handicapped.
Divorced of legal phraseology, the position as we see it is:
The electrical power interests of the city of Winnipeg aim to secure the primary right to control the regulation of all the waters in the English and Winnipeg rivers in Ontario.
They do not need this "privilege" in order to furnish power to their customers.
But, in order to give that impression, and to divert attention from the fact that they propose to waste about one-fourth their utilizable waterpower, they have used the phrase "dependable flow"-
I have not gone into the question of " dependable flow," because I shall leave that for others, but it is a question that might well be argued before this committee.
-and are seeking to encroach upon Ontario's waterpowers and to blind the public and their elected representatives to tihe real results.
Efficient development of the waterpowers along the Winnipeg river will Obviate any necessity for preventing the full use of Ontario's resources.
Exactly what I have said, that if the province of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg are willing to develop their own water-powers and to spend the money that is necessary for such development, there is no need whatever to interfere in any way with the vested rights of the province of Ontario. Let me read only this one more clause:
If the Dominion Parliament bows to the will of the Winnipeg electrical power interests and the Bill becomes law, a direct hindrance to northwestern Ontario industrial growth will be achieved and a dangerous precedent established in permitting one province to encroach upon the rights of another.


Arthur Meighen: Who is the author?


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The Board of Trade of
Kenora. The letter also says in regard to the consulting engineers:
They say that the utilizable flow develops 27 per cent to 31 per cent more power than the dependable flow.
The dependable flow method wastes the 27 per cent to 31 per cent, and runs it off in flood time.
In conclusion, I desire to say that this legislation is vicious in every sense of the word. It is brought in under cover of something that really does not exist for the purpose of enriching another province at the expense of Ontario, brought in at the request of Manitoba by the Premier thereof to enrich not only that province, but many



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
private interests within that province which ought to spend their own money to enrich themselves. It is brought in primarily to satisfy the province of Manitoba; but it is brought in, I repeat again, to satisfy a private interest and under the cloak of that, and I say that it is without a doubt nothing but a side-wind or an attempted side-wind to take from the province of Ontario that which rightfully belongs to her and to deprive the people of that province of the control of their water-powers and natural resources.
Again I refer to the boundary award. That was fought to the last djtch. In that award the province of Ontario, under Sir Oliver Mowat and the great men who surrounded him, was given the right to all those lands and the contents thereof. I repeat-and I appeal now to my hon. friends opposite who are supposed to have Liberalism in them

that this is nothing more or less than a side-wind to come back to the old fight between Macdonald and Mowat and deprive the province of Ontario of what she has fought and given her best for. I say this ought not to be allowed, and that the people of the province of Ontario will resent it in the strongest possible manner, as this Government will find out. I appeal to the Government as earnestly as I can to drop this legislation until the few months have expired which will enable this Government and the province of Ontario to get together and come to an amicable agreement which will be satisfactory to both governments and which will prejudice neither. I appeal to my hon. friends opposite, many of whom I see before me or their ancestors fought the old fight, once again to come back to the fight of the boundary award. I remember as a young lad that the first time I ever knew I was a real Grit was when that question came up and the cry was:
The traitor's hand is on thy throat, Ontario! Ontario!
Then I realized the fact that the great, strong Sir John A. Macdonald, ruling this whole Dominion, was endeavouring to take from the little province of Ontario her wealth and resources, and I said to myself, if this is Toryism, Liberalism is good enough for me. If there is one shibboleth left that remains dear to the heart of every Liberal, whether in the province of Ontario or in any other province, it is the old shibboleth of which Mowat and Laurier were the great exemplars-the old shibboleth of provincial rights and provincial autonomy.
Francis Henry Keefer: Naturally, as a portion of my riding is affected, I rise to take part in this debate. Speaking from this side of the House, I regret exceedingly that I am not able to follow the Prime Minister in this matter. I think this Bill is wrong, wrong upon its merits, irrespective of the question of provincial rights; that is a different question altogether, and one that I am not going to argue. My remarks will be directed to the question why this Bill is wrong, unfair and unjust.
In the first place, I wish to preface my remarks by giving the instructions I received just a few days ago from the Kenora Board of Trade, and which to my mind very accurately set forth the proper course to pursue in this matter. It is a telegram dated May 26, addressed to myself, and has been communicated also to the Government:
Kenora Board of Trade considers that Lake of the Woods Regulation Act now before the House should not be adopted, but Government efforts concentrated on securing the adoption of International Joint Commission's report and ratification by both countries. Should Control Board appointed under treaty not (have sufficient powers, the necessary legislation could be enacted. As we consider the Act is of contentious nature, and Kenora being vitally interested, we feel the best interests of the Dominion would be served at this time by action as outlined above.
Kenora Board of Trade,
A. M. Rose,
Secretary.
It is a most unenviable and unhappy position for any member on the Government side of the House to have to differ from the Government on government legislation, but if I did not voice here the views of my people, which in many respects I think are right, I would be false to the trust which they have reposed in me; and I do not intend to be that.
In the first place, it might be advisable to give a rough description of the locus in quo, as we lawyers say. Rainy lake, Rainy river, the lake of the Woods, and the Winnipeg river, are practically all one stream, with enlargements, the two enlargements being the lake of the Woods and Rainy lake. The major portion of the waters of the Winnipeg river that come from the lake of the Woods come from Rainy lake. Rainy lake is a very large lake on the international boundary, with other lakes above, also international, feeding into it. Rainy river is the outlet of that lake. It is also international, and upon it works have bean constructed at International falls or Fort Frances. Then you enter

into the lake of the Woods, only a very small portion of which, the northwest angle, is international. The outlet of the lake of the Woods is the Winnipeg river, and the Winnipeg river and the lake of the Woods are practically dammed by nature, by what is called Tunnel island. There are two or three outlets forming Tunnel island, and this island holds back the waters, subject to these natural outlets.
What has taken place there in the past was this: In 1887, after a long period of low water conditions from 1880 on, the Government of Ontario, in order to further the business of that district, induced private parties to build what was called the Rollerway dam.- (I want to give the history of the whole question, iso that whatever vote is recorded it will not be with any misunderstanding.)-The Dominion Government by Order in Council agreed to give $7,000 towards the construction of that dam and the money was afterwards voted. The dam was built. It raised the waters, but was not quite efficient. For reasons considered best by the Ontario Government, they saw fit to enter into an agreement with the Keewatin Power Company to build a new dam further down the river. The Rollerway dam is just at the opening of the river from the lake of the Woods. This new dam is now often spoken of as the Kenora dam. To show that this work was of a public nature, and that it was in the public interest to have it constructed, the Ontario Government, as representing the Crown, made a grant of Tunnel island to the builders of the proposed Nurman dam, which was to cost quite a large sum of money. The dam was built. The question arose whether the full amount of money had been expended, but the Ontario Government waived that, and granted the patent to the island.
Now we start out with the Norman dam as we call it, built as a public proposition. Its benefit was for the public. It benefited navigation and held up the waters both for power and everything else. The dam was not put there as a menace or to take advantage of any one, but to do good, in the public interest. It has remained there for 26 years. It was built in 18931895, but no stop-logs were put in the openings built to let the flow go through, until 1898. Then it was considered advisable to control the waters by putting in a stop log. In 1898, five years after it was built, stop logs were inserted, and the Ontario Government-previously it was the Dominion Government to the Rollerway-
266*
granted $4,000 to the Norman dam for this purpose, and were given the right to regulate that dam.


Mr. ROSS:: May I ask a question?


Francis Henry Keefer: Certainly; I should be
only too glad to throw any light on the subject, as it affects my constituents.


James Hamilton Ross: Was the Norman dam built with the approval of the Governor in Council?


Francis Henry Keefer: I know of no plans or
specifications or application for that dam. It is now called an outlaw dam, but it was built as of public benefit twenty-six years ago, in return for the grant of Tunnel island.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Are there two dams
there, the Norman dam and the Kenora dam?


Francis Henry Keefer: There is really only one dam, the Norman dam. Sometimes by mistake it is called the Kenora dam. There are three outlets to the lake, one at the Lake of the Woods Milling Company's plant, at Keewatin, one at the Norman dam, and another which has always been spoken of as the eastern outlet.


Mr. HENDERS:: What became of the
Rollerway dam.


Francis Henry Keefer: When the Norman dam was built, the Rollerway dam was taken away.


James Hamilton Ross: The hon. member has not
answered my question. Was the Norman dam built with the approval of the Governor in Council of the Dominion?


Francis Henry Keefer: No, it was not; no
application has ever been made of which I know. After putting in these stop logs, the Ontario Government was given the right to make regulations. That may not have been the proper course for the province; it might be argued that such was a matter that was in the jurisdiction of the Dominion Government, because navigation was affected. The Ontario Government paid $4,000 and the construction was made for the benefit of navigation, and the raising the height of the water at the outlets for the benefit of power.


Jacques Bureau: Was there any contract?


Francis Henry Keefer: There is an agreement to the effect that the right to control the flow shall cease on thirty days' notice, and it was because of that agreement that there

was at first a great deal of fear regarding the Winnipeg interest question. It was thought that the owners of the dam could give thirty days' notice and do away with control rights. In my judgment, that Is not correct. The Ontario Government, irrespective of that agreement, had its statutory rights over that dam, and recently, as cited by the last speaker, when the lease was given to Mr. Backus on the White Dog, a clause was inserted to give the Ontario Government, for all time to come, the control of the flow, not only at the White Dog rapids, but at the Norman dam. To prove my contention that, even with that agreement for the thirty days' notice, the Ontario Government's rights are not ousted, I would call the attention of hon. members, especially of legal gentlemen, to the River and Streams Act of Ontario. There are two Acts in Ontario that affect this question so far as that province wholly is concerned. One is the Rivers and Streams Act, chapter 130, scetion 27, which gives power of regulating the use of waters by owners of power, and also by owners of timber leases; and that is irrespective of the agreement I have mentioned. Then there is another Act, passed the following year, the Rivers and Streams Act, chapter 15 of George V. Section 7 reads:
Where improvements have heretofore been constructed under The Timber Slide Companies Act, or under the authority of any other general or special Act, or it is proposed to construct further improvements upon any river, and the minister deems that it is expedient in the public interest that the U9e of the water of the river should be regulated so that all persons entitled <to use it for lumbering, power, or other purposes, shall be given reasonable and fair uses, the minister may appoint an inspector who shall visit such river and inspect the works upon it, and report to the minister upon their nature and extent, and the purposes for which they are used.
Section 8 reads:
Where it appears expedient in the public interest, or where any conflict or dilspute arises between persons having a right to use the river or any works, or other improvements thereon, for lumbering or other purposes, the minister may appoint an officer or officers with such powers and duties as may be deemed1 expedient to be in charge of the river or improvements or other works, who shall have power to regulate the use of the river, or any works or improvements thereon in such a manner as shall seem beat calculated to afford (to persons having diverse interests on the river or in the works or improvements, a fair and reasonable use of the waters of the rivers.
And here is an important proviso:
Provided that where any alteration of the level of international boundary waters is involved, such regulation, powers and duties shall oonfonm to any order or recommendation Which

the International Joint Commission may make under the terms and authority of the International Boundary Waters Treaty between Great Britain and the United States.
So that, so far as Ontario is concerned, that province has endeavoured to legislate to give authority, through her proper officials, to regulate the waters at tbis point.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
may not know that the clause he has just read has been deemed ultra vires by the Attorney General of Ontario.


Francis Henry Keefer: I understood that the Attorney General of Ontario, prior to the difference between the two provinces, did take the ground that this section did not give the authority which it was heretofore always supposed to have been given. That was his obiter dictum on the matter, but lawyers differ from the Attorney General of Ontario on this, as on many other questions.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman differ from him on the question?


Francis Henry Keefer: I think, under that Act, the province of Ontario has power to make an order, with regard to any dam that affects international waters, comply with any International Joint Commission's report.


Arthur Meighen: Is that Act itself intra vires?


Francis Henry Keefer: In so far as it does not conflict with navigable waters. It cannot divest the Federal Government of its jurisdiction over international waters, nor can the Federal Government, under the guise of navigation, attempt to divest the Ontario Government of its jurisdiction over its own waters, and. that has been the complaint of my people up to the present time in this matter.
Now, as to the history of the matter, there has never been any difficulty in regard to regulations up to date. The International Commission was requested to look into the whole problem and make a report, and that report has been referred to. I differ from the right hon. the Prime Minister in regard to what he has been instructed was intended by the commission in their report. I may be wrong, hut he gave me the impression that the commission, in their report, stated that for the purposes of navigation the regulation of the dependable flow was necessary within the figures he gave.

Now the International report, at page 71, reads as follows:
The primary object of the recommended supervision and eontrol would be to protect the Interests of riparian owners in both countries during seasons of excessive flood inflow Into the reservoirs and to protect the interests of navigation against loss and damage due to excessive draft upon the stored water toward the end of a series of dry years, while at the same time permitting the advantageous use of the waters flowing from the reservoirs for power purposes;
That is the important part I think we should note.
Leaving to the owners of all dams and other works in these waters the right, subject to the limitations of the proposed International control, to use the same under their respective local Governmental jurisdiction for the purposes for which they were intended.
The International Joint Commission never intended in any way that its findings were to have any influence upon the manipulation of the waters within the area where the local rights were to be maintained. Only when the situation got to a dangerous point was the commission to step in. Might I point out that if we could once get this report adopted by the United States in treaty form, then undoubtedly this question would solve itself and the only legislation necessary by this Government would be that for the purpose of implementing the treaty. In the meantime I think we are getting the cart before the horse. We are only creating the impression that we are going-under that report which has not yet been accepted by the United States-to take the high water which we have no right to do. We have no legal right to that to-day. It is against the interests of the riparian owners of the United States and for the sole benefit of Canada, and I hardly think we are acting in a wise way to get confirmation of the agreement by the United States.
The trouble in this whole problem has been over the term " dependable flow". It is not a question of control; everybody wants control. There must be control, and there should be control, and my people of Kenora want control. They are afraid now, owing to the course that has been pursued by Dominion Government officials in never consulting them and only consulting the Manitoba interests, to leave that control in the hands of those officials. They want Government control. But they want control by the Ontario Government as well as by the Dominion-that is the situation so far as they are concerned.
So let no one say that anybody opposes control.
Now then what else? It appears that the name of Backus is thrown into this discussion. It is like a red flag to a bull -everybody sees red. In many cases people lose their heads and many misstatements are made in consequence thereof. I have never acted for Backus in my life or transacted any business for him. I have never received any instructions from him regarding this Bill, nor heard from him in any way at all about it-I am acting solely from a sense of justice which I think is being violated in this matter. But even if it be the case that Mr. Backus is actuated by unworthy motives in this matter it is not in accordance with the principles of British law to condemn him until he has been found guilty. Any criminal is entitled td* just the same careful, evenhanded justice as the highest man in the land; and I think we ought not to let the name of Mr. Backus be interjected into this discussion all the time. So far as the Federal Government is concerned they have been using Norman dam for the past two years and manipulating it as they saw fit without any objection on his part. Now what has happened? Let us look and see.
First of all how did Backus get this Norman dam? It was built twenty-six years ago and he purchased it along with their holdings from the owners four years since. For two years, up to the time of joint action the two governments have been operating it. It is a dam which, until some power works are built there, merely controls the level of that lake. The dam holds the water up in the lake and regulates and controls it. So it is not a case of getting rid of the dam to regulate the power. Under this legislation it is sought to regulate "the dependable flow." There is the whole trouble. True that expression was in the original Act that was to be passed by the province of Ontario. The province made the same mistake that the Dominion Government made in not consulting the people that were interested. They only consulted the people down the river; they did not consult the people of Kenora who are vitally affected by this legislation. The people of Kenora have been in hard times for the last few years. Their industries have been closed down and their saw-mills removed. Yet they have timber all around them, and they were reaching out to try and get some industry to establish itself there. They have water-power and

they induced this man Backus, who has a very large plant at Fort Frances, to come over there and enter into some agreement with them. They were like drowning people catching at a straw; they were ready almost to give their whole town away to any industry that would locate and put them on their feet. He entered into an agreement with them and also with the Ontario Government. He got timber concessions, agreed to build a pulp-mill and took over their local water-power, formerly operated by the town of Kenora, and which is on the eastern outlet. No sooner was that agreement entered into than difficulty arose with Winnipeg. My people claim-whether rightly or wrongly is another thing-that the Winnipeg interests are desirous of preventing this industry getting started. They feel that they also should have been consulted when negotiations were taking place. I was- at one meeting where all interests concerned were represented. I happened to be in my own home town last summer and received a message from the mayor of Kenora asking me if I would not go to the meeting in Winnipeg. I went to that meeting. The Backus interests were represented by their engineers and lawyers; the Winnipeg interests were also represented, and the little town of Kenora was acting as a sort of peacemaker trying to bring the different interests together. Thqre was perfect harmony at that meeting until we struck one question and that was the question of the cost of the flowage from raising the water on the upper lake. Now, let me explain that. On Rainy lake a big industry was established some years ago at International Falls. They built another dam higher up, and spent large sums of money, but they have not acquired the title to the flowage or the lands submerged. Those interests want the flowage question considered by the interests down the river, but the latter say "It does not concern us. You went in there, we are independent of you, and when the time comes it is necessary to expropriate additional property we will talk about it." The minute they struck that there was a divergence of opinion. The meeting broke up and since that the various interests have never been brought together again. Instead of that the Winnipeg interests have attempted to approach Ottawa to control the matter. Now, what is the situation? They want to get the dependable flow out of the lake of the Woods, but they do not want to pay for the dependable flow out of Rainy lake. That is the bone of contention, and that is a power dispute between several companies.

Now, the Dominion Government is trustee, of course, of the powers on the Winnipeg river for the province of Manitoba, but is also trustee for the province of Ontario, and1 in addition she is Manitoba's executive officer as to water-powers. The powers down the river do not need at the present any extra storage on that upper lake. They are benefited by it to-day. I do not want to take up an undue length of time on this matter, and therefore I will quote briefly the report at page 66:
The more the inflow into the Lake of the Woods

That necessarily comes from Rainy lake.
-is equalized the more readily can; the recommended level be maintained within a small fluctuation, and the greater is the dependable outflow that can be secured from any given extreme range in level of the Lake of the Woods.
Naturally if you control the storage of the Rainy lake which in turn controls the storage of the lake of the Woods, you get a more dependable flow down the Winnipeg river than if you only control the storage of the lake of the Woods.
That was the bone of contention between them. Then what happens? The Winnipeg interests come down to Ottawa, and eventually an arrangement is made, without the people up there knowing about it, between the province of Ontario and the Federal Government, by which it was agreed that joint legislation should be passed by both governments. If	the joint legislation	had been
passed there might have been no difficulty. But immediately my own people, the parties affected, heard of this proposed joint legislation they went to the Ontario Government and fought for their life as they considered it, and they fought successfully. The question is asked: Why did the Ontario Government not pass that joint legislation? Simply because of the representations of the people of Kenora district. Then we have this legislation introduced. My people are opposed to it just as strongly as they were opposed to the former legislation.
But in a sense the Federal Government has power to do all that it is seeking under this legislation with the exception of control of the English river. Under the Dominion Rivers and Streams Act unauthorized obstructions already built in any river can be taken out, and any existing dam can be removed if it is an obstruction; also before any new dam can be built permission must be obtained from the Federal Government. What happened? Mr. MAY 31, 1921
Backus had bought the little power plant located at one outlet, which was at the town of Kenora, and he was proposing to enlarge that outlet so as to (build his works there and not at the Norman dam. He was proceeding without any authority, and therefore illegally. Whether he knew or not-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Ha, ha.


Francis Henry Keefer: Some hon. gentlemen say "Ha, ha". They seem to think that everything must be presumed to be wrongly done in this world; I would rather presume things to he rightly done. When the illegality was brought to his attention he filed his application for approval of his plans and for the consent of the Federal Government through the Minister of Public Works. That application is to-day standing, and I have telegrams from the people of Kenora hoping that the work will not be blocked, that 150 men or more would be thrown out of employment and entreating that something be done to let the work proceed. The Federal Government to-day has power in its own hands to impose whatever conditions it sees fit upon the building of that dam, or outlet, or improvement; or it can refuse the application, in which event the work cannot be proceeded with, the water will still flow down, and things will be as they have been during the past few years.	'll
But instead of acting under its present statutory powers, waiting till next session and meanwhile getting unanimity, the Federal Government has been advised to pass this legislation. I think it is unwise and unjust in the last dying hours of this session, when my people have no opportunity of coming here and opposing it, and unless there are paramount reasons for the measure being proceeded with I urge that it should be withdrawn. This morning I received telegrams from my people on the English river protesting most strongly against the English river being included within the scope of this Bill. The English river has nothing to do with the lake of the Woods, in fact, it does not flow into the lake of the Woods, and Backus is not concerned in it.


Arthur Meighen: Has the hon. gentleman any objection to reading those telegrams?


Francis Henry Keefer: I received a telegram
from Sioux Lookout protesting against the English river being included.


Arthur Meighen: I have a telegram from the mayor of Sioux Lookout, but it does not
do what the hon. gentleman says his telegram does.


Francis Henry Keefer: This is the telegram the Prime Minister hands me: Sioux Lockout is a divisional point on the English river. There is a little sawmill at present, and it expects to develop into quite a considerable town.
Sioux Lookout, Ontario, May 30, U9I2H. Hon. Premier Meighen,
Ottawa, Ont.
We herewith petition you respecting Bill now before House referring to control of Lac Seul waters.
Lac Seul is the source of the English river.
We petition that the natural rights of our town in Pelican Falla water power on the English river be protected by an amendment to the Bill to restrict the raising of Lac Seul to a level which would destroy any portion of the present horsepower development available at this point.
The Bill proposes to give power to the board to regulate and hold the waters up there, which would affect the present horse power. The first Bill which was introduced had to be amended when the Prime Minister's attention was called to the same, to make it a little fairer to these people. It even purported to give the right to shut off the flow of the English river entirely.
Should Bill now under consideration pass in its present stage and commission appointed raise level of Lac Seul sufficient to deteriorate Pelican Falls, it would be a serious handicap to our present and future industrial development, which development is an essential necessity for the proper financial assistance to our town to assist in supplying finances for our educational and other municipal requirements, which assistance is urgently needed.
There is development under way there and they hope to bring in population which will help them to maintain their schools.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that they decrease the head of the other falls?


Francis Henry Keefer: No. Pelican Falls is below the river, and if the waters are held back at Lac Seul you necessarily affect the flow of the English river. The Pelican falls situated thereon.


James Hamilton Ross: How far is Lac Seul from the junction of the English river and the Winnipeg river?


Francis Henry Keefer: I should say 150 miles or more. Supposing we were dealing with the Ottawa river, it would be similar to attempting to regulate the Gatineau river and the Blue Sea and other lakes thereon through the Federal Government.

Under the conditions referred to and the representations which our member, P. H. Keefer, will no doubt make to you.
I only got their telegram this morning. They are acting of their own motion.
We ask that our petition be granted fullest consideration and our interests protected as asked for. Thanking you in anticipation of same.
John Macleod,
Mayor.
Now, these people are quite anxious about this matter. They do not understand the necessity for the proposed action, and unless it is of paramount importance I think it would be wiser not to press this Bill through, Is it necessary that we should proceed in this way? The proposal can hardly be justified on the ground of fulfilling international obligations. In fact, we are violating international obligations because we have raised the level three feet and we are holding it there without authority. If we can get the United States to adopt the report of the International Joint Commission, that would be a different matter. In that case the report itself will be sufficient authority for legislation of this kind, because it recommends two boards of control, one international and the other domestic. In the meantime we are proceeding, at the request of the interests down the river, to pass legislation to control the water-powers above.
The Bill is based upon the principle of "the most dependable flow." Now, that is a technical term; let us understand the difference between dependable flow and natural flow. The natural flow of a river is that which takes place when there are no obstructions; you will have high water in the spring and low water in the middle of the summer. The dependable flow is brought about by placing artificial obstructions in the river, raising the minimum flow up and thus at certain periods securing more water, and taking away the increased flow naturally resulting from spring freshets and holding it for use during the summer when it may be most needed. That is a very proper thing to do, but it is an artificial state of affairs. Under the common law a man is entitled to the use of the water in its natural condition as its flows by, so long as he does not obstruct it or, by holding it up, prevent the people below from using it. But this legislation sweeps away that common law right and makes everybody take the dependable flow. If the Winnipeg powers would take up the question of dependable

flow out of both lakes there would be no difficulty, but here they are taking up only the question of dependable flow out of the one lower lake but not out of the upper. The time will come-and it is not very far off-when all the waters in the Winnipeg river will be needed for power purposes, and everything that can be done to increase the flow of water there is desirable. Then will come the time when there will be a desire to expropriate the flowage on the upper lake, to raise, as the commission's report suggests, the waters in the upper lake still higher. If that action is deferred the cost will be much greater than if it were done now and the cost should be apportioned among these different interests in the ratio of the benefit therefrom. But Winnipeg says: "No; we have nothing to do with that. You built in this upper place for your own benefit. You have increased storage there. We will benefit by that but will pay nothing towards it and when the time comes that we want some more we will take this thing up together." Here we find the origin of the dispute-and I am simply trying to give the facts to the committee so that every hon. gentleman will be able to vote intelligently in the matter.
By using these words "dependable flow" you affect the rights of any person having a power plant on the Winnipeg river who finds it advantageous to use the natural flow. In the case of some plants it is advantageous to use the natural flow; in the case of others, it is not. I can understand a street railway or an electric lighting plant wanting to have dependable flow, because they are running all the time. I can understand that some other large industry might want to use the spring waters, having them go through their wheels instead of being wasted through sluice-gates. There are such problems involved in industrial operations, and you strike at the rights of these people when you use these words "dependable flow," unless there is some agreement or else provision for compensation, and nothing of that kind is contemplated in the present Bill.
Now, what are the facts about dependable flow? If hon. members will refer to plate 125 in the book of plates of the International Joint Commission they will see that for 75 per cent of the time under natural conditions more water than the dependable flow comes down the river and that for 25 per cent of the time less water than the dependable flow comes down the

river-the dependable flow being estimated at 11,500 cubic feet per second. I am not speaking now for any one in particular;
I speak merely from a sense of justice.
If any person who owns a power plant on that river wants to use the water in its natural condition, are you willing by arbitrary legislation to force him to take the dependable flow? The man above should not be allowed to interfere with the man below in any wrongful way. The old common law maxim is absolutely true: "So use thine, own as not to injure another." But does not that apply with equal force to the people down the river? Why should they be entitled to say: "We want to use our own to the detriment of you who are up above " Why, they could establish a little auxiliary steam plant if they wanted to, under ordinary flow conditions, and get more power during the 75 per cent period than the dependable flow. The point I want to make is that the fight in this case has been between these rival power interests on that word "dependable flow." The rival powers of Winnipeg want to get the benefit of private capital that has been invested in the Rainy lake by getting the resulting dependable flow without paying for it, and yet on the lake of the Woods force the greatest dependable flow with or without concurrence. To me that is not fair. I hold no brief for Mr. Backus in bringing out the situation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: If the hon. gentleman
will permit me, who are the rival power interests in the matter?


Francis Henry Keefer: I will try to explain
the power developments all the way down the river. First, there is a very large power plant of the paper making company at International Falls of which Mr. Backus is the head or manager. I do not recall its exact name. There are then no more power plants until you get to Kenora, where there is the Lake of the Woods Milling Company. These people also want control. They were in favour of the former Bill for joint control by Ontario and Canada. Then there is the Norman dam, with no power plant at all. Then there is the little town of Kenora with its power plant. As you get down the river there are the White Dog rapids, a power which is not yet developed. When you get into Manitoba territory there are several power plants, Winnipeg companies, including that of the street railway-I do not know the names. There are two or three of them.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Two.


Francis Henry Keefer: All the powers in Manitoba have not yet been taken up-only two-thirds, or something like that.


Arthur Meighen: The only one the hon. gentleman knows is the Winnipeg Street Railway.


Francis Henry Keefer: No; I do not know the names, but I know there are others. If you could give me the names I would be obliged.


Arthur Meighen: The principal power
development is that of the city of Winnipeg.


Francis Henry Keefer: And what others? Winnipeg is a very big city, but I do not think it should have the right, by way of legislation or otherwise, to take away the rights of the little town of Kenora without either consultation, negotiation or compensation.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: May I ask another question? In wihat way are the Backus interests at International falls involved in the matter of this Norman dam?


Francis Henry Keefer: They are three or four hundred miles up the lake and river at International Falls and they are not in any way affected by the dispute at the outlet of the lake of the Woods. So far as I know, they are not involved in this Norman dam matter. I do not know whether the same company owns it, but Mr. Backus is connected in some way With the International Falls plant and with this new proposal to build at Kenora. He has no plant at Kenora; I think he bought an old sawmill there, but he is not operating there. He has no power plant operating, and he is now starting to develop his power plant under his agreement with the Ontario Government, and he is held up, properly, by the Dominion, because he has not complied with chapter 115. There is where the Federal Government can, if it wants to, put whatever conditions it desires to impose upon his application.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton) :: Would
the hon. member tell the committee how many power plants the Backus interests have on the river?


Francis Henry Keefer: The only operating
plant which they have on the river is the original one which they have at International Falls, a paper mill. About four years ago they bought the rights to the Norman dam from the Keewatin Power Company, but they have not done anything there yet. Recently they made an agreement with the town of Kenora and

the Government of Ontario to erect a pulp mill at Kenora.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I suppose the interests of the Lake of the Woods Milling Company at Keewatin are identical with those of the city of Winnipeg and of the Winnipeg street railway?


Francis Henry Keefer: The Lake of the Woods Milling Company do not want control by Ontario; they would prefer to have control by the Federal Government. I do not to that, desire joint control or not; but when the former Bill was introduced, they telegraphed me saying that they were in favour of that Bill, which was a Bill for joint control. Since this new Bill has been introduced, I have received no word from them one way or the other.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend a moment ago stated that the root of this difficulty was in the differences of opinion that existed between rival power companies. I cannot follow him precisely in seeing where that arises.


Francis Henry Keefer: The root of the difficulty is in the disputes between the power interests down the river and, perhaps, including that at the lake of the Woods milling plant and the Backus interests, which have, by private capital, as this report says, raised the waters of Rainy lake from three feet up to 4.97 feet and thereby given greater storage and dependable flow down the Winnipeg river. The Backus interests want them to join not only in paying proportionally for that benefit, but in acquiring the additional flowage that the report recommended. The other interests say: "No; we do not want to go in."


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I understood from my
hon. friend a moment ago that the Backus interests acquired an interest in the Norman dam a few years ago-


Francis Henry Keefer: About four years ago.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: -and that the level of the lake of the Woods, since this Norman dam was built in 1897, has been controlled by this Control Board. Am I right in that?


Francis Henry Keefer: The Norman dam was built in 1893 to 1895. In 1898 it was brought under control by putting in stop logs, with a bonus for so doing of $4,000 from the Ontario Government, with the right of the Ontario Government to control that dam. Whatever control has existed up to the last few years has been 
under the agreement by the Ontario Government, not by the Dominion Government. Then came this purchase by Mr. Backus and interests of the company who owned the dam, the Keewatin Power Company, about four years ago. That went on for a couple of years, and about two years ago a joint board was formed. The province of Ontario was very charry about entering into that joint board. They did not want to give up their sovereign 5 p.m. right of control of the Norman dam. Rightly or wrongly, they took the position:	"That dam is in
Ontario; it is under our jurisdiction, not under federal jurisdiction." But they were induced to join in a joint control, by each government passing an Order in Council for that purpose, and that is the state of affairs to-day. For two years that board has functioned; that board is functioning to-day; so far as I can see. that board will continue to function, and if the statement of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) is true that, according to the letter that was addressed to the Prime Minister, the owners of that dam have undertaken with them that joint control shall continue, I do not see exactly what there is to fear for the next year particularly when there is power vested in the Dominion Government under the Navigable Waters Act to refuse to allow any structure to be built or to impose any conditions in regard to the building, and until the plant is built, nothing can be done.
There are other things that are necessary in order to get dependable flow and which the town of Kenora has been desirous of having done. One of the ways to get dependable flow would be to enlarge the outlet, as recommended by the commission. That has not yet been done, and it would involve quite an expenditure. It is being asked for by the Kenora people. The storage of the upper lakes is also a contributory to dependable flow. I quote again from the report:
The dependable outflow from the lake of the Woods, however, can also be increased by additional storage on the upper ftainy watershed. This additional storage will not only benefit the water-powers on the Winnipeg river, but it will also aid in maintaining the recommended level on the Lake of the Woods and increase the available water-power at International Palls and Port Frances.
The Commission has recommended that in order to secure the most advantageous use of the waters of the Lake of the Woods and of the waters flowing into and from the lake it is practicable and desirable to secure at least 415 billion cubic feet of additional storage

capacity on the upper Rainy watershed. By drawing Rainy river lake down another half foot in time of extreme low water, a full 150 billion cubic feet storage would become available. If this entire 150' billion- cubic feet storage capacity is used primarily in the interest of the International Falls and Fort Frances plants it will, nevertheless, directly increase the dependable outflow from the Lake of the Woods in the interest of the Winnipeg river water-powers by 360 c.f.s. This is equivalent to the increase in flow that could be secured by half a foot additional draft on the Lake of the Woods. Moreover, every increase in dependable outflow which is secured by equalizing the inflow into the Lake of the Woods instead of by increasing the draft on that lake assists in maintaining the recommended level with less ordinary fluctuation.
The people of the upper lakes have been increasing that flow by getting that additional storage. They desire now to take on the additional storage there, which will be a (benefit to the people at International Falls and also to the Winnipeg river people. This is what the report says:
The -net result, therefore, of 150 billion cubic feet of storage on the upper Rainy watershed is to increase the dependable outflow from the Lake of the Woods by at least 650 c.f.s. corresponding to an increase of at least 17,000 horse-power in the potential water-power on the Winnipeg river.
That, in my judgment, according to what I have observed, is the cause of this difficulty to-day. This is a water-power dispute between the powers in Manitoba versus the powers in Ontario. As the Bill is brought in at this late hour, I think it is unwise. I do not want to refer again to this question of control; everybody is in favour of control, but it should be joint control if the province of Ontario has any rights.


Mr. STEVENS:: If this Bill is not
passed, will the control rest with what are known as the Backus interests?


Francis Henry Keefer: In my judgment, absolutely no, and nothing can be built on that river or on the outlet from the lake of the Woods without the approval of this Government under chapter 115. That approval is being asked for now.
, Mr. STEVENS: Under the Navigable Waters Act?


Francis Henry Keefer: Yes. But no decision has yet been reached about it. No power plant can be built there, and it is a power plant that is sought to be built to-day and which the people are very anxious to go on with, but it cannot go on without this Government's consent. In addition to that you have the control over the Norman dam, under these joint Orders in Council, under
the agreements, under the undertaking that was quoted and under the courts of the land.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A moment or so ago my hon. friend mentioned that the Kenora Board of Trade had asked for enlarged openings. Of whom did they request that?


Francis Henry Keefer: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Was the Norman dam built under the terms of the Navigable Waters Act?


Francis Henry Keefer: No, I do not think the Navigable Waters Act was thought much about 26 years ago. It was not brought in until 1885.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How does the hon.
gentleman propose to control the dam now under the Navigable Waters Act when it was not built under that authority?


Francis Henry Keefer: In the Navigable Waters Act there is a clause which gives jurisdiction to the Federal Government to take control of any existing dam heretofore built without that authority, and to do anything they like with it-to blow it up, if they like.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then this Government would be able to take that dam now.


Francis Henry Keefer: They can take that dam out of there now, but the Government does not want to touch it, because the owners would want compensation. It cost $300,000 or $400,000 to build. One thing I do not like about this Bill is that there is no provision for compensation. If you are going to take this dam, which has been for the benefit of the public, there should be compensation.
I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I think this Bill is unwise. It is very contentious legislation, and is probably going to lead to much litigation and dispute between the Ontario Government and the Federal Government, and probably with private interests. It is going to arm Mr. Backus with a grievance. He will say: This is the way I am treated by the Federal Government; they have introduced this Bill and they are legislating me out of my natural rights to keep up a dependable flow; I am willing to discuss the question of dependable flow with them, but they will not discuss it with me; they want the United States to Carry out the recommendations of the International Joint Commission, but as they are not dealing fairly with me, I ask you not to agree to the adoption of the report. The Bill will also arm the people, at the northwest angle which is in the United States, with a grievance; they are opposed to the raising of the level and the flooding of their farms.
Lastly, I think this legislation is unnecessary because authority already exists under a federal -statute. I think we would be wise not to raise any question of conflict between the Government of the province of Ontario and this Government.


Arthur Meighen: Whatever merit there may be in what I may say now, it will not be necessary for me to consume the time of the committee at any length comparable to the speeches of the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me. I am sorry, indeed, that the hon. member for one of the districts affected does not see his way to support the legislation. I have never before been able to follow his reasoning as regards this subject, and I must say 
that the confusion which its expression produced on my mind previously was only enhanced by his speech this afternoon. The same, indeed, applies to the utterance of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). I think I can take what they said, however, and make clear the actual point and substance of the matter that this committee must decide.
The hon. member for West Lambton says: We have had under two Orders in Council a Board of Control installed. That board is there, and what they have done has been wholly satisfactory; everything is all right; just let that board go on. That is his plea. Upon examination, he admits that there is no statutory footing for the Orders in Council appointing the board; that is to say, that anything in the world that they try to do may be challenged, and challenged successfully. But that, he says, is quite satisfactory to him. The board, he argues, is satisfactory, though it can enforce no ruling, though it cannot do what be claims it must do to have any effective control, namely, improve the Norman dam at considerable cost; therefore, let the board go on because Mr. Drury has the assurance of Mr. Backus that everything he will do will be all right. Consequently, that being specifically so, he says, on the authority of the Premier of Ontario, the Government of Canada should retire to its chamber and leave the whole situation to be worked out by agreement between Mr. Drury and Mr. Backus. That we have declined to do, and in declining we ask the support of this House and of this committee. While Mr. Backus was giving that assurance, I may add, he was down at Ottawa seeking to get certain concessions with regard to the outlet at the east end entirely inconsistent with that assurance, and inconsistent with the findings of the International Joint Commission as to the level of that lake.


Francis Henry Keefer: In what respect?


Arthur Meighen: Because his express
intention here was to raise the level of the lake beyond the level fixed by the tribunal, after he got the concession enabling him to divert more water from the eastern channel.


Francis Henry Keefer: No. My understanding is that he is applying to increase the outflow of the eastern outlet, which can be compensated by passing less water at Norman dam, and which can be provided

for under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


Arthur Meighen: The Navigable Waters Protection Act-I did not intend to take that point up now, it is entirely out of its natural order-enables the Government of Canada where navigation is interfered with, or where it Can say that navigation is injured by the obstruction, to remove that obstruction or have it altered. That is all it empowers. There can be no continuous control under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


Jacques Bureau: Does the Prime Minister claim that, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, no work erected can be destroyed without the previous consent of the Governor in Council?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I have just said
it can be done, but only when, in the judgment of the Governor in Council, navigation is injured.


Jacques Bureau: I do not agree with
the Prime Minister.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. member
say that we can do it merely by caprice?


Jacques Bureau: You have powers to do it at any time, not necessarily by caprice.


Arthur Meighen: That is the distinct
object, and it is only in securing that object that we should be justified in exercising powers under the Act. It is the duty of the Government to see that no step is taken by private interests or any others, in the meantime, that embarrasses us or puts it out of our power to see that the findings of the commission are respected.
* Now, the hon. member says that we should let the present board go on, on the basis of Orders in Council. Well, it is rather an amusing reflection to hear hon. gentlemen opposite appeal to the security of Orders in Council instead of Statutes. It is not quite consistent with the speeches we heard on the Address in reply to the speech from the Throne. But let that pass. He says that the board should work on the security of these Orders in Council, which hon. gentlemen admit have no statutory foundation, and consequently will be ineffective, though they were all that we could do at the time. He says: "That will suit me." Does the hon. gentleman know that these Orders in Council require that the board shall insist on the principle of dependable flow? That is what they are to enforce. The Orders in Council say: You control the outlet of the lake of the Woods, but you control it
in consonance with the principle of the highest dependable flow. My hon. friend (Mr. Keefer) says that that is a wrong principle; and there is the kernel of the whole thing.


Francis Henry Keefer: I say it is a very
advisable principle, but it should come about only by agreement.


Arthur Meighen: Then my ears were at fault. I understood the hon. gentleman to argue for half an hour against the principle of dependable flow.


Francis Henry Keefer: There are some power
plants to which the natural flow is more advantageous than the dependable flow, and vice versa.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman think that we should have the dependable flow principle enforced in respect of the waters flowing out of the lake of the Woods?


Francis Henry Keefer: You should have dependable flow with compensation or concurrence of all interested, but you should not take it arbitrarily.


Arthur Meighen: There is nothing here
to prevent compensation if any injury is done. The question is: dependable flow, or no dependable flow in respect of waters flowing out of the lake? The hon. gentleman, as I understood him, argued for half an hour that we had no right to insist on the principle of dependable flow, because the owners of power had the right to natural flow, and all the advantages that the natural flow would give. In the first place, how can you have natural flow when, at the same time, you must, not naturally at all, but for the general benefit of all, keep the flow of the lake out of the natural level? How can you have natural flow? In times of high water you must hold the water from going out of the lake, and do the very opposite at other times. There you have the principle of natural flow interfered with, and you cannot help it. You must have it interfered with to the general advantage of navigation and in the interests of all concerned. But in the next place, have we reached the point where we must discuss whether dependable flow is a right principle or not? The International Joint Commission, after hearing all parties affected, find that it is the right principle; after hearing all the power interests, the navigation interests, the fishery interests, and those whose lands were flooded, reported in favour of the principle of dependable flow; and acting upon that

report, having accepted it, it is our business to see that we are in a position to carry out that recommendation. What is the sense of saying, in one breath, that we should keep the present board in operation under the Orders in Council, and in the next breath advocating that we should abandon the dependable flow principle, and let these people at Norman dam, and further down, have natural flow? Why, the Orders in Council that constitute the board say it must insist upon the dependable flow principle. I hope I have made that clear. Those who say that dependable flow must not be insisted upon at the lake of the Woods, must also say that we should abandon the board altogether, and put it out of office, because that board, while in office, is bound to carry out the dependable flow principle. The hon. gentleman stated -and I took his words down mentally- that if the joint legislation had been passed, things would have been all right. Well, the town of Kenora was opposed to the joint legislation. They were invited to come down and be heard and were given plenty of time to do so.


Francis Henry Keefer: Does the Prime Minister not recall that they had only three or four days, and wired asking for a postponement? They had just returned, and did not want to turn round and come back immediately.


Arthur Meighen: They had been here,
but they did not appear before us at all. They went home, and were given notice which allowed them two or three days, before leaving, to come again if they had anything to say. I really thought that two or three days' time was enough, but they did not come. Anyhow, all I insist on is the fact that they were just as much opposed to that joint legislation as they are to this, because the Backus interests at Kenora

and naturally Kenora is concerned in the development of the Backus interests-do not want dependable flow at the lake of the Woods, but such flow as suits Mr. Backus The more it suits him the better pleased they are. That is the whole thing. They were just as much opposed to that legislation as they are opposed to this. Now, where is the consistency in saying that the joint legislation would have been all right if it had gone through, that things would have been fine, and at the same time arguing that you must not carry out the dependable flow principle? The joint legislation provided for that. The province of Ontario, through its Prime Minister acquiesced in the principle of dependable flow, and not only did it acquiesce, but 
ever since its representatives have been on the Control Board, the board-for the last two years-has upheld that principle, as they uphold it to-day. We are either going to throw it overboard and put the control of the lake of the Woods outflow in the hands of those who will abandon the dependable flow principle, and take the flow as they want it, or we must pass this legislation or some other legislation to the same effect.
Surely we do not want any more reason for the legislation than that given by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer), and the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). They come to the committee and say there must not be any control that has such statutory foundation that it can enforce its decrees. They are ready for control that has no statutory foundation, and that can be defied. There must not be such control as insists upon dependable flow, but only such as leaves the flow to the sweet will of those in control of the Norman dam, giving the assurance, not to us, but to the Government of Ontario, that they will take care of the control of the Norman dam in such a manner that our international obligations and the interests of navigation will be respected, and we shall not need to bother our responsibilities at all. I do not see what stronger argument in favour of this legislation could be addressed to the committee than that put forward by the two hon. members who have just taken their seats. It is not that there is any one in Manitoba who wants to take advantage of investments at Kenora. The hon. member for West Lambton tries to lift before us the shadow of the ghost of Mackenzie and Mann. He says that they have interests further down the river, and that	they are behind this legislation.	Well, the correspondence on
the table of the House shows that the most insistent demand for this legislation comes from Mr. Norris, the Premier of Manitoba. Is he championing the cause of Mackenzie and Mann? He is championing the cause of the province of Manitoba. Is he the champion of the cause of Mackenzie and Mann? No, he is the champion of the cause of the province of Manitoba. It is his duty to act in that capacity. We would have no right to accede to his demand at the expense of some other province, or m defiance of some principle; but we do accede to his demand because it is consistent with the findings of the tribunal which heard the case-which was compe-

tent to hear it and competent to decide it -and which gave this as its judgment. That is why we accede to his demand. Not only is Mr. Norris urging this legislation most insistently, and Mr. Norris's Government, but also every municipality in that whole province which is affected. I have not looked through the list but there is a series of resolutions, an inch or half an inch thick, emanating from municipalities and others whose very industrial life depends upon the conservation of the principle which the International Joint Commission lays down. My hon. friend (Mr. Keefer) now says a situation exists wherein the people of Manitoba are asking that other people make investments for them at Kenora and at the lake of the Woods. Nothing could be more fanciful than that. All the people of Manitoba are asking for is this: that there be control of the water-powers in order that such control shall bring about the maximum utilization of the waters of the lake. That is what the International Joint Commission sought to determine. They were there to determine how best the interests of navigation, the interests of the owners of these lands that would be flooded, the interests of the riparian owners, and of everything else, power included-how all these interests could best be served. They made the'r finding, and it is not until this afternoon that their finding is openly attacked in what might be called central determination namely, the principle of "dependable flow." For if we now abandon that, then we bid good-bye to the projects that have rested upon it and upon which thousands have been expended-yes, I think millions-projects that are in part the enterprise of private individuals it is true, but projects that are in the main the enterprise of the collective people of the province of Manitoba and of municipalities there-not the city of Winnipeg alone but many other municipalities as well. Those projects-in which Ontario has acquiesced, in which Manitoba has acquiesced, in which United States has acquiesced,-have the right to expect that they shall stand and not be invaded and cast down by the conduct of any interest, of any individual or any town however ample the justification of that town may appear to be. It is not the intention of any control board to interfere with any legitimate development by the town of Kenora. Why should it do so? There is nothing to be served to that end. If it is in the interest of this board to do so, why was it not equally in the interest of the board that has been operating in the past? Right here let me say that the Government intends-and I do not think there is any reason to doubt that the intention will be carried out if this legislation passes-to appoint the very same men who have been acting for the last two years and a quarter, including the two who were nominated by the province of Ontario. Manitoba has no representative upon that board. There are two Ontario representatives and two Dominion representatives, and if the Ontario representatives are willing and are permitted to act then it is the intention of this Government that they-in association with the two with whom they worked in harmony all these years-shall form the board, and when they set to work they will be setting to work on the ground work of an authority that is unimpeachable, and able to have their will carried out; not carried out according to mere caprice and in a fashion which will destroy private rights without compensation-if those private rights are really vested and secure-but that will gain the utmost public advantage from, ana the utmost utilization of, the existing great resource. That is all the board will seek to do, and in seeking to do that it wiP be armed with authority to that end.


Mr. MOLLOY:: I desire to say a word or two on this matter which is of great public importance to the province of manitoba. I will not attempt to follow the arguments of the gentlemen who have preceded me-gentlemen belonging to the legal profession who have argued from the legal point of view more or less-but will consider the matter from a common-sense point of view.
The present situation has arisen, as I understand it, owing to the failure of the Ontario Legislature to pass concurrent legislation with this Parliament in regard to the board of control. The board of control was formed of the four gentlemen whose names have been mentioned by the Prime Minister, but they had no legislative authority behind them and so Were not in a position to carry their views into effect. For instance, I am informed that the Norman dam is in need at the present time of repairs to the extent of $60,000 or $70,000. The board of control, however, were unable to recommend any expenditure for that purpose because they did not know whether the provincial and Dominion authorities would sanction it. Along the Winnipeg river there are a number of splendid power sites. The city of Winnipeg is therefore

directly interested in this important question, as are other sections of the province of Manitoba. I am not speaking for any of the interests that have been referred to when I say that the province of Manitoba is asking for the passage of this legislation, which is nothing more or less than protective legislation. The hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) this afternoon sought to make a point of appealing to Liberals to oppose this Bill. I am just as good a Liberal as my hon. friend ever was, and I am going to support this legislation. I believe it to be liberal in its character. It is legislation for the protection of the people of the province of Manitoba as against what may probably, in the long run, be the interests of one man if this Bill be not passed. If the enactment of this legislation was desired, or sought, by any particular interest, and that alone, I do not know whether I would bother supporting it or not. But I intend to support it on the ground that not having the enjoyment of our natural resources the only authority to which we can appeal is the Dominion Government. If I thought that my vote in this matter, or that the effect of the operation of any provision of the Bill, would prejudicially affect the province of Ontario in the slightest degree I would refrain from giving the measure my support. But I am a Liberal, and as such I believe in provincial rights of which Liberals have always been the champions. If my hon. friend from West Lambton, or any other hon. member, can show me that this protective legislation in the interest of the province of Manitoba will injure the province of Ontario to the extent of a five-cent piece I will vote against the Bill. But they cannot do it-they cannot prove that there will be any such result. Now, as I have already said, we do not control the natural resources of the province, therefore, in this matter it is the Dominion which must act. This is not a question of the Dominion versus the provinces-it is a question of provincial rights as against Backus' rights. If this Bill be not passed, and Mr. Backus succeeds in his plans, he will, by reason of his control of the water-powers on Rainy river and lake of the Woods be able to so regulate the flow of water passing through Norman dam and the White Dog rapids, as to be in a position, if reasons of his own prompt him to do so, to cut off the heat, light and power supply of the province of Manitoba obtained through the Winnipeg river. For that reason I am compelled to support the Bill.
There is another factor too. The Winnipeg river has been declared to be a navi-.
gable river. As I understand, the agreement that the Dominion Government wanted to enter into with the Ontario Government was simply this, to share control of that portion of the Winnipeg river which does not lie withn the boundary of the province of Ontario. The Norman dam, I am informed, was built by a Mr. Mathers a great many years ago as the result of a concession. It appears that he obtained from the province of Ontario a quantity of timber on a number of islands, and the province, if I am correctly informed, asked for this timber to be surrendered, and in consideration of his doing so granted him permission to build this dam. Mr. Backus, later on, bought the dam from a private party. My hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) mentioned about compensation. I understand that Backus was not only offered all he paid for the structure, but that the Dominion Government invited him to bring forward every item he had paid on account of the dam with interest added, which they were willing to repay him. But he refused their offer and later tried to sell the dam to the city of Winnipeg for $1,500,000, which he had bought for only $147,000.
I support this legislation because any concession of the kind I have indicated is against the interests of the people, and should not be granted to Backus or any other private individual. The waters there belong to the people of the provinces of Manitoba and Ontario, and! not to any individual. They were put there by the Creator for the benefit of our people, and as many of our people should be benefited thereby as possible, rather than a favoured few.	t
There is another ground on which I support the Government, and that is power development. I understand there can be developed on the Winnipeg river 500,000 horse-power. At present the city of Winnipeg is using 47,000 horse-power and the electric railway 35,000 horse-power, and I understand that the city is now endeavouring to establish a plant to generate further power, but they cannot get money to carry on the enterprise, because the financial institutions take this stand: We do not know who owns or controls the power on this river, and therefore we do not propose to lend you any more money. If it is true that 500,000 horse-power can be developed, it is also true that the quantity of electrical power demanded for use doubles in seven years. This means that all the power which can be developed along that river will be in use by 1947, and more will then be re-

quired. As I said before, it strikes me that it is not a matter of provincial rights, it is a matter between the rights of the province and the rights of Backus. Why should we for one minute allow any man to purchase the Norman dam, or any other water-power and, with unlimited capital, put himself in a position to be able to say: You cannot have that power unless you deal with me. Hearsay evidence is not considered good evidence, but I have been told that Backus a short time ago stated in Winnipeg that within twenty years, if his scheme matured, his son would be the most powerful power magnate in the whole of North America. When he gets control of this power he will say to the people of Manitoba: Bow to King Backus! I, for one, refuse to bend the knee -to him or to any other magnate.
The province of Manitoba has spent millions of dollars on these water-powers. The argument has been advanced by the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) that he and others who share his views are trying to do something for the province of Ontario, and he quoted those old lines:
The tyrant's hand is on thy throat, Ontario! Ontario!
Well, I heard that when I was a boy at school. But it seems to me that what my hon. friend and some others want to do is to put the heel of Ontario on the neck of Manitoba. I can only say, Mr. Chairman, that I am opposed to any such proceeding. The trouble is that this man Backus has received so much from the people of this country that he simply does not know when to quit. I remember in the old days the late James Conmee was the only one in the Private Bills Committee who was able to handle Backus and put him where he belonged. And, as far as this country is concerned, we are going to put Backus where he belongs, no matter what some people may say about this legislation. At any rate, that is the stand I take.
Mr. Backus owns the pulp and paper mill and the power development at Fort Frances. He also owns the Norman dam and the Kenora municipal power plant. He has acquired, or will soon acquire, the right to develop White Dog falls on the Winnipeg river near the eastern boundary of Manitoba. He also has large concessions of pulp and paper on the English river, and will also, no doubt, get the power sites on this river. The result is that he is in possession of the means of controlling the flow of the waters down the Winnipeg river, and may, if he is not controlled, do indefinite damage by holding up the 267
water at times to suit his own purposes.
Now, to sum this up, Mr. Chairman- and I do not intend to take any more time, because I do not have to talk at great length to make myself understood-I can put it in a sentence: This legislation is merely a means of protecting the interests of the people in one province against those in another on an interptrovincial stream over which this Government has the right of control.


Mr. BLAKE:: I was very sorry to hear from the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) such an attack upon the people of Winnipeg and upon this Bill. I agree with every word said by the member for Proveneher (Mr. Molloy) that this is an interpnovircial stream, and as such should be controlled for the interests of both provinces rather than for the sole benefit of Backus. The hon. member for West Lambton expressed his regret at this Bill being brought down in the dying hours of the session, but we must do some work before prorogation.
It has been urged that because nothing but small and shallow boats are used on the Winnipeg river, therefore it cannot be regarded as a navigable stream. Will my hon. friend say that because there are small draught boats plying on the Mississippi that therefore the Mississippi is not a navigable stream? This river is a navigable stream, and must be regarded as such and controlled by the Dominion Government.
My hon. friend from West Lambton also regrets that the people of Winnipeg are interested in this matter. Why should they not be? Would he rather have Backus completely interested and the people of Winnipeg taking no part? The industrial life of tne province of Manitoba depends upon the power development on this river. We are also dependent upon the waters of this lake for our supply of drinking water. We have had our whiskey cut off but we do not purpose having our water supply cut off. The city of Winnipeg is the fourth manufacturing city in Canada and we have as cheap power as is to be foiind on the American continent. The water for our waterworks comes by gravity from the lake of the Woods, there being a drop of 291 feet from the lake of the Woods to lake Winnipeg. Practically every foot of this water can be utilized for the development of power to meet the needs of Winnipeg in the days to come.
The member for Lambton went on to say that there was plenty of power on the Winnipeg river for Manitoba and that there



[Stage Direction]
was no need for controlling the flow. The whole point with us is that we do not wish to be left in the hands of this man Backus. Backus got concessions in connection with the building of a power plant at Fort Frances. I lived at Fort Frances during the early construction days, and I know that his agreements with the Dominion Government were cast into the scrap heap and that he put most of his plant on the American side, paying no regard whatever to his agreement. This point was also brought out by the Prime Minister in his remarks this afternoon, with regard to the way agreements had been dealt with by Backus. There is no interference with provincial rights in this legislation. There is as much power at the Norman dam under controlled development as Kenora will ever utilize, and there is no question of harm being done to Kenora's interests. Backus seems to have it in his head that the Canadians are useful only to be exploited by the Yankees on every possible occasion and he has proceeded at all times to exploit the Canadians. If he got complete control he would be put in the position of being able to exploit Manitoba as well as the whole of northwestern Ontario. As I understand it, Backus is an American and his partner Brooks is a senator in the Minnesota legislature. During the time of the war we had a paper controller, and Mr. Backus even defied that official; he has tried to be a law unto himself on every possible occasion. An instance of that is when he started to open one of the outlets of the lake of the Woods without filing any plans with the Public Works Department. He does not seem to have changed for the better at all. I do not think that even the speech of the hon. member for West Lamb-ton will have the effect of making him any better than he has been in the past or less inclined to exploit the public domain in the future.
The member for West Lambton said that if there was no interference with the flow below the dam, everything would be right. Well, it is the interfering with the water at the dam, not below it, that we are raising the hue and cry about. If Backus got control of this dam-and the control that exists at present may be cancelled on thirty days' notice-and took such action as would interfere with the work of the power plants at Winnipeg we would find ourselves without power to run our industries, to light the city or to distribute power throughout the province as is being done at present.

The control at present is absolutely unsatisfactory to the city of Winnipeg, and that being the case we do not propose to let Backus do as he sees fit in this matter. Let him run the Drury Government according to his own fancy and prevent the concurrent legislation from being put through if he wishes. The hon. member for West Lambton agrees with many of the principles advocated with regard to the corttrol but not with regard to the suggested provisions for full control of the height of the dam. He contended that Winnipeg wished to have the primary right to control the flow and wants to be assured that the waters shall always flow. Well, the question of dependable flow does not enter into this. Dependable flow and utilizable flow have been spoken of on many occasions, but in any power plant the dependable flow is certainly the one that is utilized.
One of the hon. gentlemen who spoke has urged that this legislation constituted an interference with northwestern Ontario's commercial growth. But we have no intention of interfering with the growth of Kenora or their control of power; we have intentions though, of interfering with Backus getting control of these waters of the lake of the Woods. If he were to get control of this Norman dam he could stop the supply of water to the power plants at present operating and lay any terms he wished to name to give them the privilege of having this power. Some hon. gentlemen would seem to wish that the Dominion Parliament should put itself in the position that the province of Manitoba might find itself in some day, by catering to this man, who has done nothing but exploit the resources of the country on every possible occasion.
The legislation which is now proposed is fair and just to all. No harm will be done by it to the people of Kenora. One of the speakers said that the provinces could get together and settle this matter even if we did not have this legislation. Well, they can get together just as well after the Bill is passed and settle any disputes that may arise between them. The town of Kenora, so far as I know, has not made any move to send deputations down here with regard to this matter and make representations on behalf of what they deem to be their own interests. They seem to feel that something is wrong, but they have not taken the trouble to find out whether or not that feeling is a supposition not based upon the facts. They are working,, indeed, purely on

supposition. The member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) said that everybody wanted control. I am quite satisfied that practically everybody does want control in this matter, but certainly Backus does not.
The question of dependable flow through control of Rainy lake is not a factor in the matter. The Norman dam is 100 miles distant from Rainy lake, and the dam on the Kettle river controls the flow into Rainy lake. There is no reason why the people of Manitoba should be held up and made to pay for the water which at present flows over the dam at Fort Frances to provide power for the Backus interests. Backus is undoubtedly already trying to get paid for the rights which have been granted to him in the water which flows over the Rainy river dam and on into the lake of the Woods, over the Norman dam and down through the power plants of Winnipeg.
I do not need to go into the reasons why the Provincial Legislature did not pass the Bill embodying concurrent legislation. I understand that every group in the Ontario Legislature was in favour of the Backus interests and opposed to the Bill, and that the fate of the legislation introduced by the Premier of Ontario was determined by the extent of the opposition which was put up to the Bill.
There was another report made regarding lac Seul power being destroyed. The people were nervous that the control of the English river Would raise the waters on lac Seul so as to stop the power already developed at lac Seul. Nothing in the Bill gives any reason for alarm on this point.
One outlet for settlement was that the Department of Public Works should withhold consent to present works. The people of Kenora are making much talk about the taking over of the control of this dam. If these works were held up by the Federal Government, the people of Kenora would have some just cause for grievance, and their voice would undoubtedly be heard. No harm is going to be done by this measure to a single citizen of northwestern Ontario or to anyone in Ontario with the exception of Backus, who is the chief opponent of this measure. As the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Molloy) said, no harm is contemplated even to the Premier of Ontario, and it is only just and right that this Bill should go through.
At six o'clock, the committee rose and the House took recess.
267 i
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
DIVORCE-ALPHONSE LeMOYNE de MARTIGNY
House again in committee on Bill No. 120 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alphonse LeMoyne de Martigny, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When this Bill was last before the committee, the preamble had been read, and consideration thereof postponed. Clause 1 had been read, and was under consideration.
On clause 1-marriage dissolved.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I understand from the promoter of the Bill that it is going to be dropped, so I would move that the committee rise.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would suggest to my hon. friend that perhaps it would be a little unfair to take that course. I may be out of order in speaking at this stage, but I would crave the indulgence of the committee. If the hon. member simply moves that the committee rise, there will be no fees refunded. It would be better to move that the Bill be discharged.


Hugh Guthrie: A motion that the committee rise will kill all the other Bills, will it not?	,


John Wesley Edwards: I do not think it is fair to this House


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out to the hon. member that a motion that the committee rise and report progress is not debatable. The motion now before the Chair is a motion to rise and report progress.


John Wesley Edwards: Are we not privileged to express our approval or disapproval by vote.


Georges Henri Boivin: Certainly.
Motion agreed to; yeas, 17, nays 16.
Progress reported.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to say-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would inform the hon. member that there is no motion before thes House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That would be in order on Friday night, but it is not in order at this stage.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should just like to say, with the leave of the House, as my hon. friend from Frontenae (Mr. Edwards) has appealed to my fairness-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the hon. member enters into a discussion of the merits of this question, hon. members who desire to reply will have the right to be heard. That being so, I would submit that it is far better for the discussion to remain over till Friday, when the Bill will again come before the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is on a question of privilege that I desire to speak. I do not want to remain under the imputation of being unfair. I want to explain to my hon. friend from Frontenae why I made the motion. I was informed this morning by the promoter of the Bill, Mr. Norman Guthrie-in fact, he came to me especially to say-that he intended to withdraw the Bill. I am informed there is a desire on the part of the petitioner to withdraw the Bill, and the hon. member for Middlesex has also so informed my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). Otherwise I would not have made the motion.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenae) :: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that when a Bill has come before this Hotise, a gentleman outside of this House has no power either to withdraw it or to have it go on.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 217, (from the Senate), respecting The Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 218 (from the Senate), for the relief of Susan Lee Johnson Bell.-Mr. McMaster.
Hon. J. A. CALDER:: (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):	I understand
that the Prime Minister this afternoon-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Unless the hon. member asks for the unanimous consent of the House, he is quite out of order in speaking at this stage, because there is no motion before the Chair. If the hon. member desires to ask for the unanimous consent of the House, he may do so.


James Alexander Calder: I understood that the
Prime Minister made a promise this afternoon-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Any promise made by
any member of the House must be subject to the rules of order.



LAKE OF THE WOODS AND OTHER WATERS

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill No. 216, respecting the Lake of the Woods and other waters, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Georges Henri Boivin: When the committee rose at six o'clock we had reached clause 2 of the Bill which was under consideration.
On section 2-declaration that certain works are for the general advantage of Canada.


Mr. McMASTER:: I will promise the
committee that my remarks on this Bill will be of the briefest sort, but as the Bill presents some difficulty, I do not wish to cast a silent vote thereon. I am sorry the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) is not in his seat, because I wish to congratulate him most heartily on the very able speech he delivered on this Bill this afternoon. Was the question that which the hon. member considered it to be, I would say "Amen" most heartily to what he said. If the question to be debated in this committee was a conflict of interest between Mr. Backus and the citizens of Manitoba, I am sure there is no member, on this side of the House at least, who would not espouse with fervour the cause of the citizens of Manitoba. I have not the pleasure of knowing Mr. Backus, but from all I hear about him I should consider that he was a gentleman whose acquisitive faculties had been fully, if not over developed, and that his proceedings and manner of conducting business in this country did not altogether cause him to be a subject for emulation or to be followed. We do not desire any special privilege for Mr. Backus. Our desire should be to treat this question with the sole object of seeing how best this great actual and potential water-power, with its head-waters in one province, and a great part of its lower course in another province, can best be used, not for the benefit of the citizens of the one province or of the other, but to the best advantage of all the citizens of Canada who live within a distance sufficiently near to this water-power to be able to take advantage of it. That appears to be the question. How can this question best be settled? We have contradictory statements of fact by hon. members all of whom no doubt spoke with the utmost good faith, and with the utmost desire to enlighten, and not to confuse the members of this

committee. We have heard the hon. member for Port Arthur and Kenora (Mr. Keefer) state that to pass this legislation is to endanger the whole industrial life of northwestern Ontario. We have heard the hon. member for Provencher most eloquently state that it is most vital to the interests of the people of Manitoba that this should pass.
In connection with this subject we have had two Bills introduced and for ease in discussion I shall call them Bill No. 1 and Bill No. 2. Bill No. 1 contemplated the passing of concurrent legislation by the province of Ontario, and I am sure that it is a matter of deep regret to the committee that that agreement was not carried out, but that the province of Ontario fell down in their undertaking, and that by reason of that failure, we are here discussing this matter to-night. The Government thought they had arrived at an understanding with Ontario. They have found that Ontario has not implemented its agreement, and to-day the Government is pressing legislation against the strenuous opposition of Ontario, legislation which goes considerably further than the legislation on which the two parties had agreed. The legislation substitutes the will of one of the parties to the agreement to the will of	the	two	parties	to	theagreement.	For	the	spirit	of	cooperation, the Government feels that it has to substitute the spirit of force. Instead of insisting upon the bargain made with Ontario they insist upon legislation which goes considerably further. The question before the House is whether or not that is the best way to proceed. I consider it is not the best way, and as we are often, on this side of the House, asked to bring forward some constructive criticism, I propose to outline, with all respect, the course which I think the Prime Minister should follow in this matter. The first suggestion I would make is that this proposed legislation be abandoned on certain conditions. The first condition is that the province of Ontario should undertake, pending further negotiations, that matters should remain in statu quo,. and that no new franchises should be granted to Mr. Backus, or anybody else, while the parties are striving for settlement. While matters are in that state, the parties should remain in their present position. That is my first point, and I think it is in the interests of both parties to the dispute. The next proposal is that the Government should exhaust every possible means of arriving at an understanding with the Government of
Ontario. It is true that the Government had a right to feel somewhat annoyed at the Government of Ontario. The Government thought that they had made a bargain, and they find that the Government of Ontario has not implemented that bargain by carrying through the legislation which was contemplated at the time the bargain was made. I grant that; but I urge the Government to persist in a spirit of agreement and accommodation, and try to arrive at an understanding with the Government of Ontario. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Hocken), whom I see directly opposite, smiles.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not?


Andrew Ross McMaster: Certainly; it is far
better to smile than to look cross. A spirit of accommodation is something that we should all earnestly strive for. We have the best authority for that doctrine, and the Government would enormously improve its position in dealing with this situation if, at this stage, it refused to follow the line of force and tried the sunny ways of conciliation and an attempt to reach an agreement. The Government will say: What if we fail? Shall we not have lost time? Some time, I grant, might be lost; but the sacrifice is W'ell worth the benefit whicn will accrue if the attempt at conciliation and agreement is successful. I say that if they are unsuccessful in arriving at an agreement with the province of Ontario, then a Bill might be brought in, not similar to the second Bill but to the first, which was the basis of the original agreement. Do not bring it in at the tail end of the session, but let us have it early. Refer it to a committee so that evidence might be heard, and we might get all the facts. We really cannot judge of the real facts of this case from hearing, first of all, the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer), the member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy), and other members who take different sides on this important question. Let us exhaust the subject and get at the facts, and let legislation not precede but follow information as to the real facts of the case. What means it if the Government refuse to accept this advice offered in all sincerity? The Government runs the risk of infringing provincial rights. I grant that there must be joint control over these great potential water powers, partly within one province, and partly within the other. There must be joint control, but let it be decided by agreement, not by one party imposing its will on the other. To infringe provincial rights is to break the bargain of Confedera-

tion, because, after all, th' rights of the provinces were acquired through our British North America Act, which was the legislative sanction of the bargain made at Confederation. And if there is one thing necessary to preserve harmony and promote peace, progress, and prosperity in this country, it is that the Confederation pact should be honoured, not merely in the letter, but in the spirit as well. I urge that fact upon members of the committee. After all, sanctity of contract is the basis, not only of our own Confederation, but, to a large extent, of our modern civilization. I therefore press this point upon the Government and ask them at this late date to reconsider the matter, and see whether they cannot arrive at an agreement with the province of Ontario.
"O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant."


John Archibald Campbell: The importance of
the matter under consideration warrants me, I think, in saying a few words. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the speeches which have been delivered today, especially that of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), who waxed eloquent on the question of provincial rights. In my opinion, the question is not so much the protection of provincial rights, as prevention of provincial wrongs. The rights of Ontario seem to be fully protected; no one is trying to infringe them. If Ontario's rights were being infringed in any way, then objection might well be raised. If Ontario thinks that it is within her rights to interfere with the privileges and rights of another province, then I think it is time that such legislation as this is introduced. However, I do not know that Ontario is taking that attitude. It 'is generally conceded that, in the case of navigable streams, the rights of the Dominion are paramount. In this case it is a question not so much between Manitoba and Ontario as between the Dominion and Ontario. Hon. members will recall that it is not so long ago since a debate took place on the question of the transfer to the Prairie Provinces of their natural resources, and I might remind the committee that this transfer has not yet taken place. At the present time Manitoba has not the control of its water powers, or any of its other natural resources. I think, therefore, that when it appears that the rights of the province of Manitoba may be affected adversely the Dominion should look after those rights. The province of On-

tario not only claims an interest in the resources of Manitoba, but also apparently takes the stand that the Dominion should not in any way protect the interests of that province when development of the resources within its boundaries is in question. I wish to point out that the very fact of there being a question as to who has control of the water in question seriously affects the situation in Manitoba. It may be that Mr. Backus, of whom mention has been made, is a perfectly square-dealing gentleman. It may be that he does not propose to act in any way which will injuriously affect the interests of the people of any province. Notwithstanding that, if the situation is not changed as provided for under this Bill, the very fact that Mr. Backus has this power is going to prove a serious menace to the development of the water powers in which Manitoba is interested. If Mr. Backus, or anybody acting for him, has the power at any moment to regulate or interfere with the supply of water in a Winnipeg river-and under the existing circumstances he appears to have such a power-~it can be readily understood that those interested in the development of the water-powers referred to are going to be materially affected even if no drastic measures are taken by those in control.
Several speakers have referred to the fact that this legislation has been brought up rather late in the session. Well, some matters have to be introduced late in the session. But we do not know how late in the session this is. A week or so ago we were under the impression that Parliament was going to prorogue in the course of a few days. Now it looks as if the end were still some time hence. As a matter of fact the first Bill dealing with this matter was brought down and passed a considerable while ago, but apparently was rendered ineffective by reason of the province of Ontario failing to take action. Therefore it is necessary to take definite action now no matter how late in the session it mav be.
My understanding of the correspondence which has passed between the Prime Minister of the Dominion and the Premier of Ontario is, that the latter was quite in accord with the legislation passed by this House some time ago. He intimated that the interests of Ontario were not adversely affected by that legislation and was quite willing that it should be enacted; but owing to circumstances over which he appears to have had no control, the concurrent legis-

lation agreed upon was not put through the Provincial Legislature. Now as far as I can see the situation at the present time is not materially different from what it w'as then. It is not a question of the Dominion Government usurping powers and rights of any province. It has been pointed out that there was a pact at the time of Confederation between the Dominion and the provinces as to the respective powers which each authority should exercise, and consequently the Dominion must be very careful not to infringe on provincial rights in any way. I wish to point out that there were two parties to that pact-the Dominion and the provinces-and if it is important that .the Dominion should not infringe in any way upon the powers of the provinces, it is equally important that the provinces should1 not arrogate to themselves powers or privileges to which they have no right or title. In the present case, if the Ontario Government proposes to enforce these rights which various hon. gentlemen ha.ve contended they possess, they would be adversely interfering with the rights of another province as well as of those of the Dominion. There is a section in the British North America Act which intimates that the Dominion has power in the case even of works which may be wholly situate within a province to declare such works to be for the general advantage of Canada. If that clause means anything at all it means that the present occasion is one where the Dominion Government can properly act in accordance with that provision. The question is not one of Manitoba endeavouring in any way to gain an advantage over the province of Ontario. It is not a question of enriching Manitoba at the expense of Ontario-it is a question of preventing something from being done which will detrimentally affect the interests of Manitoba.
A similar question may arise at any time in connection with other provinces. In fact this afternoon I was conversing with a gentleman from one of the western provinces and during the discussion the question was propounded: What if the province of Alberta should claim the same rights in respect to the Saskatchewan river that the province of Ontario claims in the present instance? If the province of Alberta should divert the waters of the Saskatchewan river for irrigation and other purposes, it might carry out that diversion in such a way as to materially affect the prosperity of the province of Saskatchewan. I can quite readily understand that in such a case strong objection would be raised by the province of Saskatchewan, although according to the contention of certain hon. gentlemen from Ontario the province of Alberta would have just as good a right to carry out such a policy as the province of Ontario possesses in the present instance.
I do not know that any good purpose will be served by prolonging the discussion of this matter. The fact is that a situation has arisen whereby an individual named Backus has gained control of various powers and franchises that hitherto have been in the hands of different parties. That fact is now recognized as creating a situation which is full of menace to Manitoba. While I deplore that there Should be any occasion for an apparent conflict between the rights of the two provinces, still the situation is one which must be faced, and to put the matter clearly, the province of Manitoba is not going to bow the knee to Backus.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall not detain the committee very long. The question, it seems to me, is too complex to justify any long argument at this stage of the session, but I believe the Government should have waited until next session before introducing such an important piece of legislation. I am, Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, from a province which clings jealously to the doctrine of provincial rights. That question has always created political turmoil in this country. Especially was that the case during the eighties, but I had thought that after the many judgments which had been rendered by the Privy Council the question of the proprietary rights of the provinces as regards rivers and lakes had been very well established.
I listened this afternoon to the arguments which were addressed to the committee by hon. gentlemen representing both sides, and I must say that I was struck with the ring of sincerity which I detected in the able speeches delivered by my hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Pardee) and my hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer). I do not say that there is not much in the argument of the right hon. Prime Minister, but from the division of opinion which apparently exists between both litigants, it seems to me that the proper course for the committee to take at the end of this long, protracted 'session is bo leave this Bill over for further consideration, when Ontario shall have had an opportunity to be heard.

What are the facts, Mr. Chairman? This body of water is of interest to both Manitoba and Ontario, but chiefly to Ontario. The Dominion Government has an interest also from the international point of view; but so far there has been no difficulty with the United States, matters which might have given rise to international difficulty having been laid before the tribunal which we created concurrently with the United States Congress to deal with boundary waters. So that the question is limited to the alleged rights of the province of Manitoba and the certain rights of the great province of Ontario. Between the two provinces I am perfectly free to express an honest and unbiased opinion. What strikes me is that the Dominion Government was from the very beginning absolutely certain that no legislation dealing with this subject could be passed without being implemented by concurrent legislation on the part of the legislature of Ontario, and so a month or two after the opening of this session the right hon. gentleman introduced the bill which I now have before me. This Bill unfortunately was not implemented by the legislation which was sought from the legislature of Ontario. It is not for me to pass judgment on the decision arrived at in the first instance by the Premier of Ontario, but it appears that for the time being owing to difficulties in the legislature this concurrent legislation had to be dropped.
But the Premier of Ontario, speaking on behalf of his province and on behalf of the legislature, served notice on the Dominion Government that he could not countenance the legislation which is now introduced, and which differs materially from the first piece of legislation submitted to this House. The difference is obvious, and that is one of the reasons which impel me to strenuously oppose this Bill. In the first Bill nothing could be done without concurrent legislation being passed by the legislature of Ontario. In this Bill the principle is proclaimed that the works are for the general advantage of Canada. Here you have the beginning of what I suppose will be a long constitutional struggle between the Dominion and the province of Ontario-a struggle which will end probably before the Privy Council.
I have much sympathy for the province of Manitoba, and I bear no ill-will towards the citizens of Winnipeg and the people of rural Manitoba. I want them to be given fair play and to get all the power they need for the industrial development of their pro-
vince, I am at one with them as to the sacred rights of their province; but I see a material difference between the opinion voiced by the Premier of Ontario and the views expressed by the gentlemen who represent the province of Manitoba in this House. It is not a question of sympathy, it is a question of constitutional law, and on that question I feel that I am on safe ground in standing with the province of Ontario. I take no sides. I simply say: Let this House prorogue, and during recess let the Government investigate and negotiate with the province of Ontario, and next session introduce such legislation as will have the good-will of that great province and be implemented by its legislature.
In such vexed matters, Mr. Chairman, let us move slowly. Already we have too many quarrels between the Dominion Government and the various provinces, and certainly we should not raise any controversial issue at this juncture when a little time will bring about an amicable understanding which will result in joint action. My right hon. friend should exercise conciliatory methods. Let him not ride rough-shod over the rights claimed by the province of Ontario. I do not blame him for the attitude he took at the beginning of the session, I do not blame him even for the surprise which he must have felt at the Premier of Ontario not being decided at first in regard to the action that he should take in the matter. But a man has a right to err, and at any rate he may mend his ways. Again, I say the question is too complex to be dealt with at this moment when we are on the eve of prorogation.
The legislation now introduced is rather a high-handed proceeding. True, there has been some little difficulty in the legislature of Ontario, but my right hon. friend surely is too human not to understand that even in the best governments there are divisions of opinion, and that there is nothing like time to mellow men and modify their opinions. My right hon. friend not having succeeded with his first Bill, which *was acceptable to Parliament and to the majority of the people of the province of Ontario, comes now with another measure absolutely different from the first. For example, he will not find in his first Bill the declaration that these works are for the general advantage of Canada. In the last clause of the Bill the right hon. gentleman gives with one hand and takes away with the other. Section 10 says:
If the necessary legislation of Ontario referred to in the preamble of The Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921, be enacted by

the legislature, the Governor in Counc'l may, by proclamation published in The Canada Gazette, repeal or suspend this Act and the regulations made thereunder at any time when or after The Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921 shall come into force: Provided that notwithstanding any repeal or suspension of this Act in the manner provided by this section the works and each of them hereby declared to be for the general advantage of Canada shall remain and continue to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
My right hon. friend and the Government are creating by this clause vested rights for the Dominion as against rights justly claimed by the province of Ontario. I shall not discuss the point further Mr. Chairman. The question is too complex, too serious from the point of view of its bearing upon the interests of Ontario, which has superior rights in the matter, to be dealt with as the Government proposes to deal with it. I shall vote against the Bill, standing for what I believe to be provincial rights.


Mr. HOCKEN:: If all that can be said against the Bill has been stated by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master), it impresses me that no case whatever has been made against it. Opponents of the Bill have practically conceded that its conditions are right, but they ask for delay and conciliation-that is the whole claim. I can tell my hon. friend from Gaspe that we people of Ontario are as jealous of our provincial rights as the people of any other province. The strongest fights that have been made in favour of provincial rights have been made by the province of Ontario.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the province of
Quebec, if you please.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I say that the strongest fights that have been made, those which stand out ip our history, have been made by Ontario. In 1896 we fought for the provincial rights of Manitoba; we have always been strong for provincial rights, and my views in that regard are as pronounced as those of any other man in the province. I am unable, however, to see in what way the rights of Ontario are infringed by this Bill. As a matter of fact, the Bill follows exactly the lines of the agreement entered into by the Premier of Ontario with the Dominion authorities as regards concurrent legislation. Now, while I am naturally strong for the rights of my own province, I am not disposed to be unfair to other provihces so far as their rights are concerned. Instead of this being a very complex question, as the hon. member for Gaspe says, to my mind is a very simple one. Here is a large body of water, the use of which means a great deal-more than we can estimate-to the province of Manitoba. What the Bill proposes to do is to preserve to that province its rights in those great water-powers, and that is especially important, Mr. Chairman, because the province of Manitoba has not as many water-powers as either Quebec or Ontario. They are limited in the number and extent of their water-powers and the great city of Winnipeg is vitally interested in this matter. It has been stated by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Molloy) that it is possible to develop 500,000 horse-power on the Winnipeg river. It will be a very few years before the city of Winnipeg and, perhaps, adjacent smaller municipalities will require the whole amount of 500,000 horse-power. Why should we let private interests come in here and within one year put up works and do things which will^ have the effect of preventing Manitoba from enjoying its rights? The idea is perfectly absurd. You must remember that Parliament is the custodian of the provincial rights of Manitoba in this matter, and if the Government refused to do what it could to protect those rights it would come in for serious condemnation. Now, I would just like to put a question to my hon friend

a very simple question, and he can just see how it fits. Suppose the province of Quebec had to look to this Parliament for protection of its rights in the great water-powers as Manitoba has to do, would my hon friend not desire to see such a measure as this go through at once? Would he talk about delay and conciliation and the sunny smile and all that kind of thing?


Rodolphe Lemieux: But the constitution is there.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I quite understand that. But let us put Quebec in the position of Manitoba. Would not every member from Quebec say: We want our rights protected, and if they can he protected only by Dominion legislation, then let us have it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: But not at the expense of Ontario.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Not at the expense of Ontario indeed. I say that Ontario is not suffering by this legislation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are you sure?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Quite sure.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then why does Ontario protest?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I am perfectly satisfied, as a member from Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is Backus that protests.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, the principal protester in this matter is Mr. Backus, who now practically owns the lake of the Woods and Rainy lake and wants to own the Winnipeg river as well as what Mr. Drury can give him. If my hon. friend would go to the city of Toronto, where there are half a million people studying this question, reading what has been done in Parliament and what has been done by the Ontario Government, he will realize that there is the very strongest sentiment against enfranchising Mr. Backus as he has been enfranchised by the gift of tremendous areas of pulp lands on the English river, and by the gift practically, of additional water-powers in that neighbourhood. Let Mr. Backus have another year or two and he will have the Winnipeg river as well as the lake of the Woods, Rainy lake and Rainy river. The whole district will come under the hands of one man. I can tell my hon. friend that throughout Ontario there is the strongest feeling that Mr. Drury made a capital mistake, a very serious blunder, in allowing Mr. Backus to talk him into giving the concession that he has given. I think I can speak for the province of Ontario when I say that this Bill will not excite the slightest antagonism in any part of the country except in the Parliament Buildings at Queen's Park-and that is simply because, having granted to Mr. Backus these enormous privileges, the Government is apparently anxious to give him the additional water-power to add to what has already been given.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do I understand from my hon. friend that the Government of Ontario does not represent the people of Ontario in this matter?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I have no hesitation, Mr. Chairman, in saying that the Government of Ontario does not represent the people of Ontario, on this question particularly. But it is my opinion-and it is the opinion held by the great mass of the people of Ontario-that whatever good things or whatever bad things Mr. Drury has done, this is certainly the worst m's-take he has made. He has given almost an empire of pulp lands to this man who

has already had many large concessions, who has enough without these water-powers, and who has too much for any one interest to have in any province of the Dominion. If this Bill does not pass, this man is given a year in which to go on with his manipulations and to put the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba in a very undesirable position. This legislation is simply protective of the province of Manitoba, as it is the duty of this Parliament to protect that province. Manitoba is not in a position to protect itself as regards its natural resources. Therefore, I say that, as regards the province of Ontario, there need be no fear that there will be any uprising of the people against a Bill of this kind. On the contrary, it will be a very serious disappointment to the people of Ontario if Mr. Backus is allowed to have another year to carry on his manipulations.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I have followed this
discussion with great interest. The name of a certain gentleman has been thrown into the debate, and I regret that it has ever been suggested that those who oppose this Bill are protecting a certain Mr. Backus. I was not informed in regard to this Bill until I heard the discussion this afternoon and evening, and I do not know Mr. Backus. I have no interest in the Bill except the duty which is mine, in common with the other members of the committee, to do what is right. The name of Mr. Backus should not be considered at all. What I consider is the fights of the province of Manitoba in the matter. Every one admits that these waters are largely, almost exclusively- my hon. friend (Mr. Pardee) says wholly-* Ontario waters. Of course this Government, to use the language of my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Hocken), as the custodian of the natural resources of Manitoba, has also an interest in part of these waters. The concurrent rights of the province of Ontario have never been denounced; they have been recognized by this Government and this Parliament during this very session. We have passed a Bill, No. 23, in which nothing is said as regards those waters or dams or other works connected with the waters being for the general advantage of Canada. The rights of the province of Ontario appear in every clause of that Bill which was adopted by this House at this session. The board that was to be appointed was appointed by both the Government of Ontario and the Federal Government. The rules which were to be made were

to -be so made by the Governor General in Council and the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Ontario. The expenses of the board were to be paid by the province of Ontario and this Government. The regulations were to be made jointly by the Exchequer Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Ontario. This Parliament clearly admitted and recognized the rights of the province of Ontario, and this cannot be denied. An agreement had been made that a similar Bill to the one that we passed was to be adopted by the legislature of Ontario; but this agreement failed to be carried out, and such a Bill was not adopted,-I do not care for what reason. Does that justify the Government or Parliament of Canada, being one of the coowners, in confiscating or taking over the whole thing and exercising full control? Has the failure of the legislature of Ontario to adopt that Bill given the control or ownership of the Ontario waters to this Government or this Parliament? This question has only to be put to receive its answer. This legislation is high-handed as the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) said; it is arbitrary; it is quite in line with the legislative record of this Government. I am glad that my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) admits that I am right in my contention. Ontario has rights in those waters. This is not denied; this has been recognized by this Parliament and this Government, and I for one do not feel justified in voting for a measure which constitutes a confiscation of the rights of Ontario, without our bearing the other party, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) said. As I said, I have no interest whatever in this Bill; I am not a citizen of either province concerned in it; I speak on this legislation merely and simply as on a question of principle, and I suggest that before we pass this Bill, it would be elementary justice to try to come to an agreement to continue negotiations. This is not an admission that the measure is good, as the hon. member for West Toronto says; it would simply be fair to the other co-owner, to the principle owner of the property, to try to come to an agreement with him before taking control and exercising a right which is not ours.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Before this discussion is ended, I should like to say just a few words to my right hon.. friend (Mr. Meighen) with a view of uging him to consider carefully the position into which not merely hon. gentlemen on both
sides of the House, but this Parliament, is being forced, by the manner in which he is rushing this legislation through at the present time. It has been pretty clearly pointed out that, as regards the 9 p.m. necessity of regulation and control of certain water rights and. powers, there is no difference of opinion between the two sides of this House. We all admit that the waters of the Lake of the Woods in so far as they affect the rights of the people of Ontario and the rights of the people of Manitoba, must be subject to regulation and control. We are not debating that point at all at this moment. The whole question at issue is: -How shall that control be exercised? Shall it be exercised with the goodwill of both provinces, or shall it be exercised in such a manner as to leave one province under a feeling of permanent injustice and wrong, thereby raising a question as between provinces, which need not be raised at all if the Government will but adopt a conciliatory method of dealing with this important issue?
Let me read just one letter from Premier Drury, which sets out the position of Ontario as it is at the present time. It is the letter in which Mr. Drury informed my right hon. friend that he was unable to carry through the legislation which he had expected to be able to. It is dated, Toronto, April 28, 1921.
Rt. Hon. Arthur Meighen,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa, Ont.
In view of the fact that the Lake of the Woods Control Bill was opposed last night in the House by the Liberal opposition and the Conservative opposition as well as from the Government side, it was found inadvisable to press second reading under circumstances that pointed to the probable defeat of the measure.
Let me here draw the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to the different parties that are named by Premier Drury as being opposed to this measure. He speaks, first, of the Liberals in the Ontario House, next, of the Conservatives in the Ontario House, and in the third place, he speaks of the members of his own immediate following; so that so far as the legislature of Ontario is concerned, men of every party are now opposed to this legislation.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is what I said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly, men of all parties in the Ontario House are opposed to the legislation. They want to have opportunity of conferring with the Dominion Government in order that legis-

lation which may be passed will be fair and also in the interest of the province. What does Mr. Drury then say?
In withdrawing the Bill I made the announcement that if then desired it tvould be reintroduced next session. I respectfully urge that in the meantime the present control arrangement be continued, and assure you of the thorough co-operation of this Government to ensure the best results for all the interests involved.
What Mr. Drury as Premier of Ontario says to the Federal Government is virtually this:	In representing this measure
to the legislature I have not had an opportunity, nor has the Legislature, of considering this question in all its bearings. We need time. You have at present an arrangement which is satisfactorily controlling questions of water rights and water-powers; continue that arrangement until the next session, and in the meantime count on the absolute co-operation of the Government of Ontario in this matter. We will co-operate with you, and next session we will bring in a Bill, the result of an arrangement which may 'be come to with your Government, and endeavour to get it through the Legislature of Ontario.
That is what to-day we here ask of the Prime Minister in order to avoid raising an issue of provincial rights. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I think nothing could be more unfortunate than that out of what may be simply a matter of controversy between certain private interests we should create an entirely new issue, namely, the issue of rights as between two provinces of this Dominion. We can avoid raising that issue if the Government will give to all parties concerned an opportunity to be heard before this Bill is finally passed. Let my right hon. friend clearly understand I am not expressing an opinion as to the rights of either of the parties in respect to these powers. I do not say for one moment that Manitoba may not be wholly in the right but there ought to be opportunity for all of us in this House to know that, from representations which can be made to us here. What I say to my right hon. friend is this:	If we can avoid
raising this question of provincial rights, if we can avoid giving to the people of Ontario the feeling that they are resting under an injustice through an autocratic and arbitrary act on the part of this Government, by all means let us avoid it.
Let me quote one other telegram which has been received, to show the justice of the request we are making, but before reading it let me draw attention to the fact that 
the Bill which was first presented to this House dealing with this question, Bill D, was passed by the Senate on the 9th of March, and by this House very shortly afterwards. That Bill received the approval of members on both sides of the House, for what reason? For the reason that it required concurrent legislation and that we were assured by the Prime Minister there was no danger of Ontario's rights being invaded in any particular because this Bill would not become operative unless Ontario consented to it. Let me read my right hon. friend's words to show how strongly he presented Ontario's case, and on his own words I would rest the plea that I am making to him at the present moment. In this House on April 20, my right hon. friend said


Georges Henri Boivin: I must draw the attention of the hon. member and of the committee to the fact that he is about to quote from a previous debate in the same session. As the matter relates to practically the same subject, I might ask for the hon. member the unanimous consent of the committee to read from the previous debate. Otherwise, he will not be in order. Is it the unanimous consent of the committee that the hon. member shall have leave to quote from the previous debate this session?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my right hon. friend, and you, Mr. Chairman.
I would not have attempted to quote had I not regarded this debate and the previous one as, to all intents and purposes, one and the same. This Bill has been introduced, of course, simply because the other Bill did not become operative owing to the failure of the Ontario Legislature to pass concurrent legislation. After presenting the Dominion side of the case, my right hon. friend, very fairly, I think, stated the case of Ontario as follows:
I have stated to the committee what is the interest of Canada federally in this matter. The interest of Ontario arises because they are the owners of the power properties of the water in that province. We are the owners and administrators of the power properties farther down in Manitoba ; that is still a third derivation of our duties in the matter. But Ontario is the owner so far as its interests are concerned ; consequently it is not right that the exercise of this control should be carried on without reference to that province. That is where the joint legislation is necessary.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says '%ear, hear." I would ask him,

how can he justify taking certain properties that are in the province of Ontario, that belong to the province of Ontario, and deliberately declare those properties to be for the general advantage of Canada as a whole without giving Ontario an opportunity to be even heard as to whether those properties are hers or not?


Arthur Meighen: The properties are not the properties of Ontario. Declaring them to be for the general advantage of Canada does not make them our property. That was the view of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee). If declaring a property to be for the general advantage of Canada makes it ours, then we are the owners of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend may play upon words. I am speaking of the controversy in the matter of control. Of course, we know that these properties are in the province of Ontario, and we contend, as my right hon. friend has said, it is not right that the exercise of their control should be carried on without reference to that province.


Arthur Meighen: We have made reference to them, and sought by every means to do .it jointly with them, but because they run away and, in the language of the school room, beat it, we should not do the same.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can show my right hon. friend that Ontario has had no opportunity whatever of expressing any opinion one way or the other.
an interest, as in the case of the W innipeg and the English rivers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question as to whether this proposed legislation is identical with the legislation previously before the House, need not be decided on the word of my right hon. friend or of myself. We have Bill D which passed the House, and which 'speaks of concurrent legislation by the province of Ontario, and Bill A 6, which is the one brought in since, and which contains clauses that are not to be found in Bill D. What are these clauses, and why are they inserted? It was on April 29 that Mr. Drury notified my right hon. friend that he had been unable to get concurrent legislation put through the Ontario House, and asked for further time. On May 6, some time after, my right hon. friend received this telegram from Mr. Norris, the Premier of Manitoba.
Winnipeg, Manitoba,
May 6, 1921.
Hon. Arthur Meighen,
Ottawa, Ont.
Mr. A. B. Hudson now in Ottawa representing province of Manitoba city of Winnipeg and Winnipeg Electric Railway Company is authorized to make application to your Government requesting that steps be taken as follows first expropriate Norman Dam second a declaration that all works now or hereafter to be erected in the waters affected by Hake of the Woods Control Act shall be and be deemed to be works for the general advantage of Canada I desiire most respectfully to urge consideration at your
hands of the
forego i-ng.
T. C. Norris,
Premier of Manitoba.
To which my right hon. friend replied: Ottawa, Ontario, May 7, 1921.


Arthur Meighen: The Ontario legislature prorogued after refusing to pass the legislation, or after Mr. Drury 'had withdrawn it. Ontario thereafter could do nothing; they could not co-operate unless we were willing to wait until next winter, and where would Mr. Backus be in the meantime?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend wished to be fair, he would confine the legislation, which he now asks us to pass to the matters he discussed with Mr. Drury, and which that gentleman endeavoured* to have pass the Ontario House.


Arthur Meighen: It is confined to those matters; but if we are to exercise control, it is part of the policy to declare these works to be to the general advantage of Canada. If ever there were constructions that should be declared to the general advantage of Canada it is constructions in which the different provinces have so clear
near ivir. xnuiuud,
I have your telegram of the 6th May. Mr. Hudson has already seen Sir James Dougheed and I am to see himself to-day. The question in which you are interested Will receive the most careful consideration.
Tours faithfully,
Arthur Meighen.
The Hon. T. C. Norris,
Premier of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Man.
My right hon. friend had these communications before him but gave no intimation whatever of their contents to Mr. Drury, nor did the Ontario Government, or any member of this House from Ontario, so far as I am aware, have any knowledge that the Government intended in this Bill to do what Mr. Norris had requested only after the previous legislation had been introduced and had failed to pass in Ontario. What do we find? In the present Bill, the one before us now, the clause which we are discussing at the moment, gives effect

to the request of Mr. Norris and not a line of it is to be found in the previous legislation.
2. All dams, structures and other works iof whatsoever description which have heretofore been or may hereafter be constructed in, upon over, about or across-
(a)	any outlet of the Lake of the Woods,
(b)	the Winnipeg River at or above its June-tion with English River, or
(c)	English River at the outlet of and below Lac Seul,
which do or may or can in anywise control regulate or affect the outflow of water from the said lakes, or either of them, or the natural levels of the water in the said lakes, or either of them, at any time, or the natural flow of the water i-n the Winnipeg River or in English River, at any time, are and each of them is declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.
I ask my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Hocken) does he think that the citizens of his city will view with satisfaction an arbitrary act of this kind on the part of the Government, in not affording him, or any one in the province of Ontario, an opportunity to be heard as to whether these works should be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada? that is arbitrary, autocratic procedure that cannot be justified anywhere. It may be perfectly right that this should he done; it may be that the claim of Manitoba is in every respect right, and I am prepared to stand up and defend Manitoba if Ontario tries to do her an injustice. But I do say that the province of Ontario has a right to have its case presented to this Parliament, and to be heard before we are asked to pass permanent legislation of this kind. But the Bill goes further. There is another clause which is not in the previous Bill, it is in the last section:
10. If the necessary legislation of Ontario referred to in the preamble of The Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921, be enacted by the legislature, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation published in The Canada Gazette, repeal or suspend this Act and the regulations made thereunder at any time when or after The Lake of the Woods Control Board Act, 1921, shall come into force.
This says that the Governor in Council may allow the proposed legislation, which we are now enacting, to be suspended once Ontario concurs in the old legislation. I think it ought to say "shall," and then the two Acts would stand on the same level. But the clause goes further as respects the matter in connection with which Premier Norris made a special request. This section goes on to say:
Provided that notwithstanding any repeal or suspension of this Act in the manner provided by this section the works and each of them hereby declared to be for the general advantage 
of Canada shall remain and continue to be works for the general advantage of Canada.
In other words, it does not matter what Ontario does now in the way of passing concurrent legislation, my right hon. friend by an arbitrary Act, without allowing Ontario to be heard, or giving its representatives time to consider the qqestion carefully, proposes to wrest the properties for all time to come out of the control of that province. Now, Sir, that is only raising a great issue in this country, namely, the violation of provincial rights; it is but stirring up enmity and jealousy between two sister provinces when there should be the fullest amity and concord. It is not just; it is not right; it is not fair; and, for my part, while I am prepared to do anything to see that Manitoba is secured in her full rights and that no injustice shall he done her-I see hon. gentlemen opposite smiling. I do not know the reason.


Mr. BEST:: Some one is smiling behind
you.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quite prepared to let every one smile who wishes to do so, if there is anything to provoke mirth in the statement that we should safeguard provincial rights. However, let me repeat what I was about to say. I am prepared to fight just as strenuously for Manitoba as for any other province. As a Liberal, when it comes to an issue between the provinces and the Dominion, I take my stand every time in the defence of provincial rights, and it is on that ground that I stand now. My right hon. friend has raised an issue between the Dominion and the provinces and he has given the province of Ontario no opportunity to be heard. That is the first of all rights, the right to be heard; to have one's case presented, and I propose to stand squarely for provincial rights in that regard.
As a Liberal, I must also say that there is something even profounder than the question merely of rights in dealing with questions that affect the provinces, and that is the obvious desirability of avoiding anything in the nature of strife and enmity as between different parts of the Dominion. If by conference and agreement, if by conciliation, if by the adoption of amicable methods we can settle questions between the provinces in a manner which will leave no ill-feeling and at the same time will do justice to all concerned, I say that we should adopt such methods and shun every arbitrary act that is calculated to create a sense of permanent injustice and leave a bitter feeling in the breast of a single province. If we

can prevent such an unfortunate state of affairs, it is the duty of Parliament so to do.	,
I wish to say again to my right hon. friend that I hope he will not press this matter at the present time. He knows that no interest can suffer between now and next session under the arrangements that exist at present. He has the assurance of the Government of Ontario that they are ready to meet him, and I am prepared to give him the assurance of hon. members on this side of the House that we shall assist him at the next session to get matters satisfactorily settled with regard to the interests of both provinces. I ask him, therefore, not to let this discussion proceed to the point where, out of what is a faction fight between private commercial interests, there may be raised a great question of provincial rights, calculated to stir enmities and jealousies between the different provinces to the possible injury of Confederation.


Arthur Meighen: I think the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has done right in stating his views on this Bill. It is an important measure, and while I am not able to harmonize some of the views he advanced, I am glad to have witnessed his vigorous attempt to express his opinion anyway. I think the committee is entitled to the same from the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Crerar). This measure very distinctly affects the province of Manitoba; in fact, no province is more vitally interested in it than the province from which the hon. member comes. The measure is a most important one; let none of us seek to deny that. It seems to me but right that we should have the views of that hon. gentleman as to the propriety of the course pursued by the Government in this regard. I have spoken twice already and I want to confine my remarks now to certain views urged with force by the leader of the Opposition. He thinks it most unfortunate to bring this measure in now; and the hon. member for West Lambton was simply amazed at the autocracy of the Government in bringing in so important a measure so late in the session. He said we should have brought it in sooner. We have had one experience that is common to every session and that is that when hon. gentlemen opposite want to oppose any legislation the one stock phrase that is always on hand is "this is the wrong time to do it." The time is never reached when the legislation does suit. Well, we brought this legislation in much earlier in the session-we
brought in a measure which this_ House considered right but which the friend of hon. gentlemen opposite in the province of Ontario refused to pass. We brought the legislation in and carried it through this House and through the Senate, and it became law. All who have taken part in this debate agree that that was the right and the proper course to pursue. We now bring in this Bill and hon. gentlemen opposite say we brought the wrong measure in first and the right measure in last. We could not bring this measure in until the other measure had failed of effect, and it failed through no fault of ours. Immediately it did so we had referred to us the question as to what we were going to do. Were we going to let the session go by, were we going to leave unsettled this matter in which we have a direct and vested interest and a great responsibility, not only to Manitoba but to the whole country, a responsibility which will fall upon us in a very, very crucial and perhaps pointed form later in the history of this Parliament-were we to run away and leave that responsibility and its discharge to the very varying cogitations of the Premier of Ontario or to the very interesting amiability of Mr. Backus? I do not think that was our duty. Having that question put before us we brought this measure here just as soon as we could work it out. It is true representations came in its favour, strong representations, and nothing came against the measure except from Mr. Drury and the town of Kenora-that is all.
Now the leader of the Opposition asks " Why has not Ontario a chance to be heard here; why should the strong arm of power rule? You walk in and you actually declare works of public construction on these rivers as works for the general advantage of Canada." Why, he said, it is autocracy and high-handedness to do that without giving Ontario a chance to be heard. Well to begin with Ontario has had a chance to be heard, and in the next place Ontario has been heard. ^ I have been placing on the table of this House from time to time correspondence with Mr. Drury representing his views a3 Premier of Ontario. In relation to this Bill Ontario has been heard through lnm. He is asking to be heard again. We cannot follow his reasoning, we cannot follow him, we cannot follow the course he would have us pursue. In the next place, how is it we must always give a hearing -in this House, or in committee, or somewhere-to the province affected before any


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right
lion, friend will permit me. He is asking why did they say that. Did my right hon. friend ever discuss with Mr. Drury this ciuestion of having these works declared as for the general advantage of Canada?


Arthur Meighen: That is no answer to
the question; that is something else altogether. I do not know that this Parliament ever in its history asked any province what works it should declare to be for the general advantage of Canada. Does the hon. gentleman ever recall when he was a member of the Government consulting with the Premier of any province before a railway, for example, was declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot remember a case where it was not done when an issue was likely to be raised.


Arthur Meighen: The province is not
hurt. To declare these works are for the general advantage of Canada does not affect Mr. Drury at all'. The question of control does, but we are ready to share that control with him at any time. But will the hon. gentleman undertake to say that any other province would be justified in denying the right of the Dominion in declaring works in which two provinces are vitally interested as works for the general advantage of Canada? I do not think Mr. Drury's telegrams specifically referred to that, but even if they did, what ground is he on? His ground really has no permanent strength at all, because if ever there were works which under the British North America Act could be so declared, they are just such works as these, and the Dominion must always be ready-because the responsibility lies with the Dominion-if Ontario stands aside and refuses to walk with us, to control works, being works for the general advantage of Canada, in whose advantages the provinces are concerned and interested. It is because this Government is ready and does not shirk this responsibility that the Bill is before the committee now.


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Chairman, I want
to register my protest and say that I am opposed to this Bill. My right hon. friend takes the ground that there was to have been concurrent legislation by the province of Ontario and the Dominion of Canada for the control of these waters. That concurrent legislation was not passed by the Ontario Legislature, and immediately my right hon. friend thought that whatever control the province might have over these waters he would vest in the Dominion by declaration which is contained in the Bill.
If this question were to be decided on sympathy, I think my sympathy would go to Manitoba, for the reason that I lived in that province in the days of my youth, and I have always retained pleasant memories of my sojourn there, especially in the city of Winnipeg. But I am speaking as a citizen of Canada, and I do not think that sympathy ought to count in these matters.
Supposing the question that we have to decide to-night were one in which the province of Manitoba, instead of being represented by the Dominion, were acting in its own right as owner and controller of its natural resources, and that Mr. Norris and Mr. Drury had got together and agreed to pass simultaneous legislation, but Mr. Drury failed to carry out the arrangement. In the meantime there would be existing by mutual agreement a board of control which had given satisfaction, and the only cloud on the horizon would be the spectre of Mr. Backus, which would frighten Mr. Norris, but of which Mr. Drury would not be so much afraid. I ask honestly and squarely:. Do the members of this committee really believe that, under those circumstances the Dominion Government would jump right in and say: "Here now, we are going to take control of this matter. You two premiers do not know enough to agree and protect the interests of' your respective provinces, although you have been elected to do so. We are going to take hold of this matter, and we are going to relieve you of all your legislative powers in relation to it and vest them in the Dominion." I do not believe any such action would be taken.
Under present circumstances it happens that the Dominion Government are the owners of the natural resources of the province of Manitoba, but that ownership is qualified, because, if I am to believe what I hear from various quarters, same day or other those natural resources will be turned over to the Western provinces,, and the Dominion Government will have to



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
account for its trusteeship. Therefore, before I would divest any province of its right of control over its property I would go slowly. As has been said by some of my friends on this side, it is a somewhat ticklish matter. These waters are not to be compared to a railway which is declared to be for the general advantage of Canada. The Prime Minister was in error in trying to make that comparison. These are part of the natural resources of the province, and if the province loses control of those resources what benefit can it derive from them?
Arthur Meighen: But we do not declare these resources to be for the general advantage of Canada; we merely declare the works to be so.


Jacques Bureau: I submit it is no use having a river if you cannot erect works to utilize it. It is. no use having a waterpower if you cannot harness that power. That is what these works are constructed for, and it is the harnessing of the power that brings revenue, which constitutes wealth. So it is no use playing on words. Of course, the Federal Government have control to a certain extent as far as navigation is. concerned.
Now, I do not know Mr. Backus, I have never seen him, but from what I have heard this afternoon it apparently takes all the brains of the provincial governments of Ontario and Manitoba to cope with Mr. Backus; in fact, they appear to be too weak to meet him, and one of those governments anyway comes to the Prime Minister of Canada and says: " Save us from the scourge. There is Backus coming. Ontario cannot do anything, and we cannot protect ourselves. This man Backus is going to run away with the Lake of the Woods in one pocket, with Lac Seul in another, with the Winnipeg river in his vest pocket and with the English river somewhere else."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is no joke, that is true.


Jacques Bureau: That is not the question we have to deal with.


John Best: You are tackling the big
corporations now.


Jacques Bureau: These gentlemen from
the great province of Ontario-and I am saying that sincerely-cannot face Mr. Backus. They think he is going to run away with all the water-powers.


John Best: He has them all now.


Jacques Bureau: I think my right hon. friend said just now that there had been no protest from Ontario except from Mr. Drury.


Arthur Meighen: And the town of
Kenora, I said.


Jacques Bureau: Supposing the Prime
Minister sent a protest to England about some legislation, and some statesman got up in the British House and said, "We have had no protest from Canada. We have merely had a protest from the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen." That is the kind of fine point my hon. friend can make when he argues. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Hocken) took it upon himself to tell us to-night that Mr. Drury did not represent the people of Ontario. Well, I am at a loss to understand why the people of Ontario should send to the provincial Parliament men who do not represent them.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I said that he did not represent the province of Ontario on this question.


Jacques Bureau: How does my hon. friend know? Has he been touring the province lately? Does he know the sentiment of the people of Ontario?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sure.


Jacques Bureau: Oh, it is not from the lodges that this information comes; it is from the public press. The Prime Minister made a suggestion this afternoon that as to the right to control and as to the duty to control there could be no doubt. Now, if he uses the word "right" in the sense of power, I am with him, but if he uses it in the sense of justice and equity I beg to take issue with him, because I do not believe that this action ought to be taken ex parte and in such a drastic and highhanded manner as is proposed. It reminds me of the old Latin saying, ego nominor leo. Certainly the question of provincial rights is involved in this matter. If some question arose between New Brunswick and Quebec as to water rights, I as a resident of the province of Quebec would not like the Federal Government to come in and say: You fellows in New Brunswick are in danger; there is another Backus in Quebec and you are unable to look after yourselves; therefore we will take control of your waters. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, like a drastic measure and that it

has in it a little bit of vengeance. As to the last clause of the Bill, it would appear that my right hon. friend is going to hold over the province of Ontario the threat of the spanking which is so dear to the heart of the Minister of Justice. He says: We are going to keep the strap ready for you; we may let you in if you are good. It will be observed that the word "may" is used, not "shall." It would seem as if the right hon. gentleman was keeping in mind the fact that Ontario would not pass the concurrent legislation and felt badly over it, and on that account was holding out this provision as a kind of penalty.
Well, Mr. Chairman, are we faced with a calamity? Is there any danger? I do not know the details of this matter, but from listening to the discussion I judge that the Norman dam is the thing which makes the people of Winnipeg subject to loss of their water supply. I put a question this afternoon as to whether this dam was built with the approval of the Governor in Council, and the answer was "No." I then said to the hon. gentleman who was addressing the committee: Well, then, you can tear down that dam; and the hon. gentleman replied: Yes, if it impedes navigation. But the law does not say that. In 1918 we amended the Navigable Waters Act so as to provide that any work built or erected in a navigable river the plans and location of which have not been approved can be torn down by order of the Governor in Council or the Minister of Public Works after the Governor in Council has so decided. Then it provides for the sale of the material and if the proceeds thereof are not sufficient to meet the cost of the action there is a claim against the person who built the work.
As an illustration I might mention a case which occurred in the riding which it is my privilege to represent. The Provincial Government and the various industries located at Shawinigan Falls undertook to build a bridge over the falls there. It could not hurt navigation very much because it would be very dangerous for a boat to go so near the falls, but they did not ask the permission of the Governor in Council; they did not make application to the Department of Public Works to approve the location. They took advantage of the ice in the winter to build their pier and false work. While this work was going on the town of Shawinigan got a notice from the secretary of the Department of Public Works saying that the work would have to be stopped. Well, there was no alternative but to take the
bull by the horns, and I as their solicitor advised them to go on, otherwise when the ice would break up the false work would be carried away and the whole thing destroyed. So in i918 we had to amend the law to provide that the Governor in Council could approve of works which had been built before a certain date. This shows the absolute control exercised by the Federal Government over any structures which are built in navigable waters. Any such structures, therefore, which have not had the approval of the Governor in Council may be torn down, and none can now be built except under such restrictions as the Governor in Council or the Minister of Public Works may impose.
As to the future, Mr. Chairman, there is no fear. This legislation is of an objectionable character, because it takes away powers from Ontario which that province should retain for itself. As to the argument with regard to the lateness of the session, that is the stereotyped argument which is always advanced in cases of this kind. I would call attention to the fact that last night Supplementary Estimates amounting to $23,000,000 were tabled, and the other day we were asked to consider another $14,000,000. We were to prorogue last Friday; now we talk of proroguing next Thursday. It is the stereotyped argument which is brought forward in a case of this kind, but as on previous occasions the fault-perhaps, I should say, the crime-is on the part of the Government itself.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I have followed
with a good deal of interest the debate on this question, and I have endeavoured to arrive at an understanding as to what is the bone of contention in the matter. The question has been raised of provincial rights and of federal rights, and also whether Mr. Drury is really representative of the people of Ontario. The question I am most concerned about is who is going to control the rights of either the province or the Dominion in the interval between this session and the next session should some legislation of this kind not be passed? Are we going to permit Mr. Backus to have freedom of control and operations in the interval-because I think -that is exactly what his friends are endeavouring to secure. As to whether Mr. Drury is really representative of the people of Ontario, I think he himself has given sufficient answer. It is somewhat significant that his champions in this House on this occasion are hon. gentlemen who do not usually display

any great amount of sympathy for what they term the great province of Ontario. I was a little surprised that the leader of the self-styled Progressive party was not in his seat to-night in order to stand up for the rights of his colleague from the province of Ontario, Mr. Drury. Not a word on behalf of Mr. Drury from the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar); but the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux), the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) are loud in their praise of Mr. Drury's attitude, and consequently they are condemning the attitude of the Government in connection with this Bill. I am going again to touch on a message that was received by the Prime Minister from the Premier of Ontario under date of April 28. After having agreed to introduce concurrent legislation, Mr. Drury goes back to the Provincial Legislature of Ontario, and introduces a Bill which he agreed to introduce in furtherance of an arrangement that had been arrived at with the Prime Minister and the Premier of Manitoba. He states:
In view of the fact that the Lake of the Woods Control Bill was opposed last might in the House by the Liberal Opposition and the Conservative Opposition as well as from the Government side, it was found inadvisable to press second reading under circumstances that pointed to the probable defeat of the measure. In withdrawing the Bill I made the announcement that if then desired it would be reintroduced next session. I respectfully urge that in the meantime the present control arrangement be continued, and assure you of the thorough co-operation of this Government to ensure the best results for all the interests Involved.
You have in this letter sent by the Premier of Ontario, evidence that he does not represent the people of that province. Instead of accepting the responsibilities that, under our system of government a premier and his government must accept, he admits that the opposition to himself in the House are running the affair and that, consequently, he can do nothing in the matter. You cannot have anything plainer than that. He endeavours to make it appear that he favours the legislation which was passed by this House; but by reason of the fact that he cannot control his House he is going to withdraw the Bill, and he will re-introduce it on a later occasion. The province of Ontario requires to be safeguarded in some way against Mr. Backus, and the people of Ontario will welcome some action on the part of this Government to see that Mr. Backus has not a free hand to carry on as he has

been carrying on. The concessions that have been granted to Mr. Backus in Ontario have already begun to alarm the people of that province, and it
10 p.m. is little wonder that Mr. Drury himself is becoming nervous in connection with the matter. The Dominion has certain rights, and it is justified in protecting those rights. This system that we have, whereby a government claim that they cannot control the House, hut that they must give way to the Opposition in its ranks, is surely a new departure under our system of responsible government. I rose merely to point this out in answer to the remarks that have been made, the question that has been submitted by the hon. member for Maisonneuve and the hon. member for Three Rivers: Does Mr. Drury not represent the people of Ontario? You have in this letter absolute proof of the fact that Mr. Drury does not represent the people of Ontario.


Mr. DAVIS:: As I purpose supporting
the Bill and yet do not want to leave myself in the position of seeming to he hoodwinked by what has been going on with regard to the matter, I thought I would make a few remarks. First of all, it is a fact that the friends of Mr. Backus in the Ontario Legislature were not the Drury Government, but the combination of Liberals and Conservatives who defeated this concurrent legislation in that legislature. The fact is that the Conservatives put their men up to oppose that legislation, knowing what this Government would do with regard to it.
IVJr. MEIGHEN:	Has Mr. Drury not a
majority in the Ontario House?


Fred Langdon Davis: I do not believe he has without the support of certain Liberals.


Arthur Meighen: Then he should hardly be there.


Fred Langdon Davis: That is the position in
which he has found himself. The consequence is that the Conservatives now are able to say that they are the people who are defending the people of Ontario from the machinations of Mr. Backus. On the other hand, our Liberal friends in this House are able to say that they are in the position of defending provincial rights, and that Mr. Drury is the man who is favourable to the avoidance of the sacrifice of the rights of Ontario. The result is that this is simply a "slim" game of politics that is being played, and that is being capped by the Government in this House now. If this

Bill is to be put through by the Dominion Government, I am going to support the Bill, but I do not want to appear to be hoodwinked as to what has been going on.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
has made statements for which he has no justification at all in fact. I do not think they concern him at all. They are statements that, he thinks, will get him some applause from those immediately around him, but they are utterly foreign to everything in fact in relation to this Bill. No sooner had this Government and the Ontario Government agreed on this legislation and agreed to make it concurrent legislation, than, as the correspondence shows, Mr. Drury kept petitioning this Government to hold back the legislation. The hon. member knows that. Was Mr. Drury doing that at our instigation? Why does the hon. member make such insinuations as this? The correspondence that has been laid on the Table shows that, almost from the day that the Bill was introduced in the Senate, Mr. Drury besought this Government to stay its hand, to hold this legislation back, because, he said, interests who were concerned in it were petitioning against the legislation. Those are the reasons that he gave, and he persisted in that attitude right up to the time that he withdrew the legislation himself. It is true that he states in his letter -and I have no doubt that what he states there is a fact-that there were Conservatives who opposed the Bill; there were Liberals who opposed the Bill; but he also says that there were members of his own party who opposed it. Were they instigated by this Government? I spoke to only two members of the legislature; I besought both of them to support Mr. Drury in the stand that he took; and if my hon. friend asks either one, he will find that to be correct. It would become the hon. member to ascertain some of the facts before he rises to speak in this House. One of those gentlemen was the hon. member for Ottawa, Mr. Hill, whom I approached on the subject, and sought to argue with him to support Mr. Drury in his stand. I think I convinced him; I tried to do so at any rate; and if my hon. friend asks him, Mr. Hill will tell him what I did say. The only other gentleman to whom I spoke was the leader of the Opposition, and I spoke to him along exactly the same lines. With every one with whom I have spoken, I have spoken along the same lines. I should like to ask the hon. member: Upon what authority did he stand up in his place and intimate that we had played a game with the opposition in Ontario to get them to oppose this Bill.


Fred Langdon Davis: The whole situation shows
what has happened.


Arthur Meighen: Give the authority.


Fred Langdon Davis: There was a combination
of Liberals and Conservatives against the Drury Government. I am not specially concerned with the Drury Government; but as I say, I can see what has been occurring, and, in consequence, though I shall vote for the measure which is now before the committee, I am satisfied that the friends of Mr. Backus are not the Drury Government in this matter, but those who made the legislation which the Premier decided to withdraw in the Ontario House.


Arthur Meighen: Is that the best
answer which the hon. member can give for saying that that was done at the instigation of this Government?	*


Fred Langdon Davis: I did not say that it was
done at the instigation of the Government, but I said that was what had occurred.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman intimated that that was done at the instigation of this Government.


Fred Langdon Davis: I did not say so. I absolutely deny that I accused the Prime Minister of being a party to this.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman did.


Fred Langdon Davis: I said that that was the
aim of the two parties in the Ontario House in opposing the legislation.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman has stated clearly that the Prime Minister had capped the game in this House tonight.


Fred Langdon Davis: Certainly, I have. I understand that is what has occurred.


Arthur Meighen: If the hon. gentleman assumes I was not a party to it, how could I cap it? He stated a minute ago that he did not state I was. If he states I was. I want him to give his authority, and give it now.


Fred Langdon Davis: I do not state you are a party to the game, but you have now finished out what was planned by the parties who opposed it in the Ontario House.


Mr. McCREA:: Inasmuch as I am going to vote with the Government on this matter, I feel that some explanation is

required. The name of Mr. Backus has been brought into this debate to some extent. It has been argued by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that he has no bearing on the case. I am not quite of that opinion. Less than a year ago the Government of Ontario advertised a large area of limits for sale. As I have been a lumberman and have done some business in Ontario, I received one of these notices. There was a whole string of conditions attached to the sale, and if I recollect aright one of the conditions was that the successful bidder for these limits was bound to construct certain works, and amongst them, I believe, was the building of a very expensive dam. In fact, the sale was hedged around with so many conditions set forth in the advertisement-the building of a mill in a certain place, the building of dams, and so on-that it was practically impossible for any other person to bid, and I came to the conclusion right off that Mr. Backus had some controlling power. Another feature was that the time between the notice of the sale and the time the tender had to be in was so short that nobody who was not already acquainted with the limits had any chance to examine the location. To my great surprise, a short time afterwards it was announced that the limits had been sold to Mr. Backus for the amount bid, and there was a bonus of $50,000', if I recollect aright, in addition to the regular Government fees. That to me seemed a mere bagatelle compared with what the limits were really worth. Of course, it may be all right. It has been said by some people on this side of the House, and perhaps by some hon. gentlemen opposite, that these limits belonged to the Ontario Government and the Ontario Government could do what it liked with them. But I would point out that there is a possibility of giving away not only rights that belong to the Ontario Government but to the Province of Manitoba. Another of the conditions of the sale, if I remember aright, was that a very expensive dam had to be constructed.
It was understood at one time that the Dominion Government and the Ontario Government were trying to come to terms, but the Ontario Government have withdrawn, and nothing in that direction has been done. Now suppose-I do not know whether this is right or not-that Mr. Backus holds an agreement whereby he is to make a certain development. Suppose he spends $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 in developing these dams and other works. Would it not then be considered a little 
late for this House to tell Mr. Backus at the next session of Parliament to cease this work? Is it not better to say that now. If the Government of Ontario are prepared to give a guarantee that neither Mr. Backus nor anybody else will make any expenditure towards developing this water-power until next session, I think we might wait until then, but unless a guarantee of that sort is given I think the Government are justified in taking steps to protect the rights of Manitoba. Otherwise, Mr. Backus or somebody else might go ahead and spend a large amount of money in making improvements that would eventually be condemned. I am not so very sure but that the great province of Ontario owes something to Manitoba anyway. If you take up a map and look at the boundary line drawn between these two provinces and see the right of way that- is given to the province of Ontario to the sea-board in the province of Manitoba, I think you will come to the conclusion that probably Ontario owes something to Manitoba anyway; but that has nothing to do with this question. I believe that Mr. Backus holds an agreement with the Ontario Government whereby he undertakes to spend a certain amount of money in constructing a mill and other works. If that is going to interfere with the rights of Manitoba or the flow of water on these rivers I say that this Government should take steps to protect the province of Manitoba, or to stay these works until next session when both parties may be able to come together. I believe in conciliation, but if we cannot have conciliation, let us at all events protect the rights that are involved.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I had intended to take part in this discussion before six o'clock, but we had several long speeches on the subject and I did not have an opportunity.
I understand that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has expressed some surprise that the committee has not heard from me. May I say that I have been absent for the past two hours attending the inauguration meeting of the League of Nations Association in Canada. I think that is important work, and I can assure my right hon. friend and the committee that my absence was not from any desire at all to evade participation in this discussion.
I may say frankly that I am in sympathy with the legislation proposed by the Government. I would be the last one in

this House to do anything that would invade the rights of any province in the Dominion. I think it is a matter of regret that this question has not been settled without the necessity of the legislation that we are now considering, but that, I am bound to say, is apparently no fault of the Government. The Legislature of Ontario, for reasons, doubtless, which it considered good, refused to pass legislation concurrent with that already passed by this House.
This is largely a legal question and I shall not attempt for one moment to discuss the legal aspect of the case, but it seems to me there are certain features that we can look at in a commonsense way. I know the position of Manitoba in the matter.
I know the fear of Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg as to what may happen if this legislation is not passed, and I can assure the House that the people of Manitoba have no desire whatever to infringe the rights of Ontario or any other province. But they are faced with a very practical difficulty. My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Pardee) this afternoon made an argument which led me to the conclusion that he was not entirely familiar with the real question at issue in the matter. He spoke about Manitoba desiring to interfere with vested interests of Ontario, and stated that we, by this legislation, were enriching the province of Manitoba at the expense of Ontario. That is not the case. All that the province of Manitoba asks is that it be protected in the flow of water in the Winnipeg river. That is necessary for the carrying out of the works that have been established in the Winnipeg river in the province of Manitoba, works established not only by the Street Railway Company of "Winnipeg, but in far greater degree by the city of Winnipeg in the development of its city light and power. It is quite clear that if there is no authority to control the level of the Lake of the Woods, if there is no authority to regulate the flow of water into the Winnipeg river, the flow of water may, temporarily at any rate, be shut off and during that period the turbines on these power plants will not turn and electricity will not be generated. It is said that there is no danger of that. My hon. friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Keefer) argued this afternoon that there was no possibility of this taking place. He argued that the Government had already the necessary control over these levels. It nevertheless is a fact that the Norman dam is controlled by private interests today, and within the levels fixed by the International Waterways Commission these private interests could interfere with the level of the Lake of the Woods and the flow of water into the Winnipeg river, if they chose to do so. That is unquestionable.
It is true that the Lake of the Woods Control Board which has been in existence has, in an advisory capacity, regulated that in the past. But it has no power by legal right to do that to-day, and if it is left to private interests alone to regulate this matter, one can readily imagine what might possibly happen. The Lake of the Woods and the Winnipeg river are not purely provincial waters. The greater portion by far of the waters flowing into the Lake of the Woods, and from the Lake of the Woods through the Winnipeg river into Lake Winnipeg, originate outside of the province of Ontario altogether. No one will argue for a moment that the province of Ontario would have the right to divert the whole of the waters of the Winnipeg river in that portion of the river that lies within the province of Ontario. Surely some authority .must be exercised in respect to it, and the proposal put forward by the Government, in the failure of the legislature of Ontario to pass the concurrent legislation, is not unreasonable. It is not intended to hurt any private interests; I cannot conceive where this legislation will interfere with the legitimate rights of any concern, the town of Kenora, or anyone else. It is necessary, and I think only just, that the city of Winnipeg, which has already spent many millions of dollars in developing its power plant, on the Winnipeg river, should be protected in the flow of water necessary to carry on its work. That is all that is asked for, and that would have been achieved had the concurrent legislation been passed. Since that concurrent legislation has not been passed, -and it has not been passed apparently for the reason that Mr. Backus used his influence in the Ontario legislature to prevent its being passed-it is necessary, I think, that something should be done. It is regrettable that this matter could not. have been satisfactorily arranged without the necessity of this legislation. Let me repeat again that the province of Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg, and I am sure my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. Molloy), and other hon. members from Manitoba who have spoken in favour of this legislation, do not desire to interfere with provincial rights, particularly the

rights of the old province of Ontario, and I do not see under this legislation that we are doing so. To my mind it is necessary, under the circumstances, and I think the House will be well advised in giving assent to the measure.


Mr. BALDWIN:: What I am about to
say is purely in the interests of Canada. A good deal has been said about Mr. Backus, and the Backus interests. Well, I think one may safely say that Mr. Backus overrides towns, provinces, legislatures, and even federal laws of the United States when they conflict with his interests. He is a man of indomitable courage and outstanding business ability, and he never allows anything to stand in his way. He will not be turned aside in his pursuit of any object, and there was never a firm of lawyers in the United States smart enough to make any contract which they could get Mr. Backus to sign before he had considerably altered and amended it to his own taste. He would erase, eradicate, add to, and re-write anything if it did not meet with his approval. I know that this is an advertisement for Mr. Backus, but I wish that this Canada had men of his kind. He owns great territory in the United States, and he even overrides the assessor and the tax-gatherer. I think he has the brains to override the Prime Minister of this country, the premier of Ontario, the Premier of Manitoba, and problably the leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Willis Keith Baldwin: I know I am saying
a good deal, but Mr. Backus is undoubtedly a very able man, and so long as I find that the Backus interests are invading Canadian territory, I shall stand up in defence of our rights. Mr. Backus has enough influence to get us into international troubles, and if he had his way, he would dam up the lake of the Woods and conduct its waters into Minnesota. Mr. Backus drives triumphantly over everybody and everything in order to attain his end, and I must warn the Government against this far-seeing magnate of the United States.
Section agreed to on division: Yeas, 90, Nays, 41.
Sections 3, 4, and 5, agreed to on division. On section 6-enforcement by Exchequer Court of Canada.


Mr. FIELDING:: The section begins with the word "moreover." Is that not a very unusual word in a statute?


Arthur Meighen: I thought so when
I read it, but it is Mr. Newcombe's drafting.


William Stevens Fielding: It will not work any
harm, I presume.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 7-appointment of officers, etc.:


Mr. McKENZIE:: I see it is proposed to appoint a board of four members.


Arthur Meighen: Our desire is to have
equal representation even on this board. As I stated in one of the too many speeches I made, the Government intends to appoint the same board which has acted all along under the Order in Council, two of whom were named by Ontario. We purpose to give the same Ontario men the appointment, so the same board will operate and perform the statutory functions called for by this Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would it not be well to say in this Bill that the Ontario Government shall have the right to nominate two of the members of the board? You do not give them the right here.


Arthur Meighen: We intend to nominate them. If the Ontario Government did that these men would have no powers from Ontario as there is no Ontario law. We intend to appoint these two men although they may refuse to act.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Seeing that the board is to consist of four members, is there not the possibility of a deadlock? Would it not ^ be well to make one of the members chairman and give him a casting vote in the event of a deadlock taking place?


Arthur Meighen: There has been no
deadlock and they have acted since January, 1919, two and a quarter years. Of course, under the Orders in Council provision was made in case of a tie. We would just as soon not have it here because we do not want to take any advantage of the province of Ontario in the matter.
Section agreed to on division.


Arthur Meighen: I now move that the provision reading:
The expense of administering- this Act and the regulations made thereunder may be paid out of any unappropriated moneys of Canada.
be made section 8 of the Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are we not voting
any moneys that will go towards meeting the expense of this board, just as in the case of other federal institutions.


Arthur Meighen: I do not know why
this wording is used; it is Mr. Newcombe's

drafting. As a matter of fact we have provided in the Supplementary Estimates a sum of $10,500 for this purpose.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We say here that it
shall be paid out of any money that is not assigned to any purpose.


Arthur Meighen: I think it must have another meaning, because there really is no money that is not assigned for a purpose. I think it must mean money unexpended.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Monies paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not appropriated to any special purpose?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 9-operation of this Act as respects existing works.


Jacques Bureau: This means that any man who has built a dam or other structure without proper authority may apply for approval thereof and1 the Governor in Council shall have three years in which to approve or refuse to approve of such work?


Arthur Meighen: Three years is given for approval. For instance, we can within three years approve of the Norman dam under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


Jacques Bureau: Application has to be made to the Governor in Council?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: The section reads:
Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to legalize any right to maintain or the legality of any dam, structure or other work heretofore constructed, or within the description of the works to which the regulating power of the Governor in Council by this Act extends; and, notwithstanding this Act or anything herein or an any regulation hereunder contained, any dam, work or other structure to which this Act applies and for which approval of the Governor in Council was requisite under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and which has not been so approved, may under the authority of the latter Act-
That is the Navigable Waters Protection Act I understand?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: And the section continues: ,
__or otherwise as by law provided, be abated,
removed or destroyed as if this Act had not been passed.
What are those words there?


Arthur Meighen: I do not know of any other law that provides for abatement or
destruction, but evidently the draughtsman has said that notwithstanding this Bill still there may be any other Act, a.nd if there is that Act is also in operation and full effect. It may refer to the Ontario statute.


Jacques Bureau: But we know this is the only Act under federal jurisdiction that gives authority.


Arthur Meighen: I think so.


Jacques Bureau: "Or otherwise as by law provided."


Arthur Meighen: It cannot do any harm.
I presume Mr. Newcombe, who drafted the Bill, had some possible legislation in mind, but I do not know what it could have been.


Mr. MOWAT:: It may refer to the Rivers and Streams Act of Ontario. In the case of the Keewatin Power Company vs. Town of Kenora, Mr. Justice Anglin held:
I have little hesitation in holding that the Winnipeg river, said to carry a volume of wate" little inferior to that of the Ottawa, formerly a great channel of commerce, must be deemed a navigable river.


Jacques Bureau: Does the hon. member
mean the provincial law?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Yes.


Jacques Bureau: How could the minister take advantage of a provincial law to abate or destroy any works?


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: The construction being in Ontario, I think it was very wise for the draughtsman to use that expression.


Jacques Bureau: Suppose we pass another law next year, and somebody invokes this clause, where will we he? .


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: No particular law is mentioned here. If it was specified there might be some complication, but this is a wide general section which provides that if there is something in the provincial law that will help this board to do its work it can be invoked.
Section agreed to on division.
On section 10-provision for repeal by Governor in Council if Ontario passes legislation referred to in the previous Act of this session.


William Stevens Fielding: Is that proviso necessary? Power to do a thing does not always carry with it power to undo it, and once you have, under the British North America Act, declared a work to he for the general advantage of Canada, have you power to return it to the control of the province?


Arthur Meighen: I think that has been
decided. If not, I know an opinion has been given on it very lately in the case of some British Columbia works. This Parliament had declared works for the general advantage of Canada beyond what were in mind at the time the legislation passed and inclusive of a lot of street railways in that province. Then the question came before the Justice Department as to whether or not we could ever remove them from that category. The opinion was that we could, and we did.


William Stevens Fielding: But was it ever determined judicially?


Arthur Meighen: I am rather of opinion that it has not been.


William Stevens Fielding: It strikes me that a
plain rough reading of the British North America Act would be otherwise.


Herbert Macdonald Mowat: Why should not these
works be for the general advantage of Canada? This has been declared to be a navigable river, and therefore under subsection 10 of section 91 of The British North America Act it is clearly within the control of the Dominion. It seems to me very proper that these works should be declared for the general advantage of Canada.
This gives me an opportunity to say what nobody so far has said to-night, that the Government of Canada should be very careful not to give away any water-powers not yet developed by the provinces. In view of our enormous national debt it seems to me that if there are assets of this kind which as yet have not been declared to be Dominion assets, the very best thing that can happen is that they should be declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.
Section agreed to on division.
On the title:


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to call the
Prime Minister's attention to the fact that in the penal provisions made in clauses 4 and 5 there is no provision for cases where there may be default in payment of fine. If there is refusal to pay the fine, that is the end of it.


Arthur Meighen: Well, there is provision for imprisonment as well.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But that is not in
default of payment of fine.


Arthur Meighen: What I suppose the
draftsman had in mind was this: only a corporation is going to undertake anything
TMr. Fielding.]
in violation of this Act of the character described in clauses 4 and 5, and if the corporation does not pay the fine the amount can be levied and collected in the usual way. I am not sure there is not a provision in our statutes for imprisonment in the event of non-payment of fine, incident to the fine itself. However, I do not speak positively as to that.


Jacques Bureau: I am still in doubt with regard to the word "may" in the fourth line of section 10. It seems to me that to leave the clause in that form will not be doing the square or manly thing by Ontario. There is something in the use of the word "may" here which I cannot quite describe; my knowledge of English is so limited that I cannot indicate exactly what it is.


Arthur Meighen: I think "may" is the right word. The Government is empowered to do it; that makes it the duty of the Government to do it unless there be reason to the contrary. It is certainly the intention of the Government to do it. The passing of the joint legislation shows that to begin with, as does the proposal to take the province in in joint control. I do not think it would aid to use the word "shall," because there might possibly be circumstances under which the Governor in Council could not proceed as set out in the section.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, with amendments.
On the motion of Right Hon. Mr. Meighen for the third reading of the Bill:
Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I beg to move in amendment, seconded by Mr. Ross:
That this Bill be not now read a third time but that it be read a third time this day six months.


Francis N. McCrea: I hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. PROULX:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Scott). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. LALOR:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. NESBITT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Westmount-St. Henry (Mr. Leduc). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. McCOIG:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :: I was paired with the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Hunt). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Main motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 130, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.-Mr. Guthrie. Mr. Boivin in the Chair:
Georges Henri Boivin: When this Bill was last before the committee, all the clauses and schedules of the Bill had been considered and adopted. The hon. member for Waterloo North (Mr. Euler) had moved that the following clause be added to the Bill as clause 22 thereof:
22. "Subsection (2) of section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act, chapter 46 of the Statutes of 1920, is hereby repealed."


William Daum Euler: When the committee last debated the amendment which I had moved, I had not quite completed the observations that I desired to make. Before I continue
*1228

them I would like to inquire of the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) with regard to some changes that have been made in the Bill as it is now before the committee. To illustrate, I think it is a fact that once names are entered on the voters' lists, it becomes difficult to remove those names should it be considered that they ought to be removed. In the previous form, -I think it was form 13-certain questions were asked which have now disappeared. For example, the question was asked of the prospective voter whether he was naturalized, how he was naturalized, and if naturalized by process of law, whether such person had a voting certificate. I notice that, in the new form, that has disappeared entirely. I would like to ask the Acting'Solicitor General whether, under those circumstances it becomes possible for names to be placed on
11 p.m. the list by the registrar, and then in case some one objects to the inclusion of those names on the list, *what oath may be submitted to him. I gather that it would be the oath in form 32; yet in the oath in form 32 no reference whatever is made to the disability contained in clause 29 to which I have taken objection. If the minister could give me an answer on that point, I would appreciate it.


Hugh Guthrie: It was found that many of the forms in the Act passed last session were defective. During the interval since last session the Chief Electoral Officer has himself gone very carefully over the forms in order to make them agree with the Act where, in many instances, formerly they disagreed. The new form of oath is form 32. I think the point is covered in the second paragraph of that oath which reads:
You swear that you are not within any of the classes of persons who lack qualification.
That is the general statement.


William Daum Euler: May I say in reply, that in section 29 no reference is made to classes of persons whatever. Section 29 reads as follows:
For the purposes of this Act the allegiance or nationality of a person,
and so forth, and it speaks throughout of a person, not of classes of persons. Is it not the fact that the phrase "classes of persons" in the new Form 32 refers entirely to such classes as Indians and people of that sort? If so, that oath would not cover the point to which I refer.


Hugh Guthrie: I think this oath was made as a general oath to cover everything 
in the Act. I will read the second paragraph:	*
That you are not within any of the classes of persons who lack qualification or are disqualified by reason of appointment to judicial office, employment for pay or reward in reference to the election, place of birth, race, crime, mental incapacity, the receipt of public charitable support or disfranchisement for corrupt or illegal practices.
That you have not already voted at this election and have not been guilty of any corrupt or illegal practice in relation thereto.
At the first meeting of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections we had the assistance of Mr. Alexander Smith, who has long been identified with hon. gentlemen opposite, and who is known as rather an expert on election law. He drew the attention of the committee to some difficulties in the oath w'hich appeared in the Act which passed last session, and as a result, the Chief Electoral Officer undertook to prepare an oath that would cover generally all kinds of disqualifications, in order that it might be put to electors when they came to the poll. This oath that is now in the Bill is the one that he prepared, and the one that the committee assented to.


Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle) :: Will the forms be taken up one by one and discussed after we have disposed of the amendment? There are so many changes in the forms that I think it would hardly be safe to lump them altogether. I understand that the intention is to discuss them one by one.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it has ever been the practice in this House to go over the forms one by one. If my hon. friend has a little time to spare and would go over the forms and point out anything he thinks is wrong, I think that would be better.


Levi Thomson: There
are so many radical changes in the forms that I think they should be very carefully considered at some stage.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not an expert on the forms myself, I must admit, but I would be very much obliged if my hon. friend would let me have a note of any changes he would suggest, and I would arrange an appointment with Colonel Biggar, the Chief Electoral Officer. It requires a thorough knowledge of the Act to appreciate the forms, and I think it would be much better to go over them with Colonel Biggar than to have a discussion of each form in the committee.


Levi Thomson: When I got this Bill I went over the forms, as I suppose did other hon. members, and made notes opposite each of the alterations, and of what struck me most at the time. There are so many alterations in the forms that I think they should be gone over one by one, and if the minister will arrange for an opportunity for those who have gone over the forms to deal with them I shall be satisfied.


Hugh Guthrie: All right.


William Daum Euler: My reason for drawing attention to the form was because I thought that if my view of the form and the significance of the oath was correct, it would directly affect the substance of the amendment which I had submitted. If the minister will say that the forms will be considered afterwards, I am quite content to go on and speak for a few minutes on the principle of the amendment before the committee.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Chairman must point out to the committee that we must observe some semblance of order. The forms were adopted when the Bill was last before the committee, and the Chairman so informed the committee this evening. It was only after the schedule was adopted that the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Euler) introduced his amendment to insert an additional clause which is now being considered. It is, of course, competent for the committee, by unanimous consent, to return to the consideration of the forms after the matter now before the committee has been disposed of, but it is certainly impossible for the committee to consider two absolutely different matters at the same time.


William Daum Euler: I am quite content to leave the discussion of the form till a little later on, if we shall have opportunity then. In the meantime I would like to complete the remarks I had in mind some three weeks ago, when this debate was adjourned in order thht the Budget might be presented by the Minister of Finance. As a considerable time has elapsed since then, I think I should briefly refresh the minds of the committee as to the nature of the law as it stands, and the significance of the amendment which I have submitted.
Under our naturalization law as it is now, any woman of foreign birth, no matter of what nationality, as soon as she marries a British subject, becomes herself a British subject, or she becomes a British
subject so soon as her husband obtains naturalization. Boys and girls, minors, the sons or daughters of a naturalized British subject become naturalized by virtue of the naturalization of the father. Now these married women, and these men who were naturalized as children, by reason of the naturalization of their father, have not under the Dominion Elections Act of last year the right to vote. except under certain conditions, although they are British subjects. I want it clearly understood that in all this discussion there is no plea made for any one who is not in law a fully qualified British subject in every w<ry. These people cannot vote unless they first go to a judge_and prove to his satisfaction that they are qualified for personal naturalization. The judge then may or may not give to them a certificate which enables them to vote. Now last year when I introduced a similar amendment I argued that the law was unjust, in that British subjects ought to be treated alike; there should be no discrimination against one class of British subjects as against any other class of British subjects. I also argued that it was not necessary-and I think I proved then, as I hope to again to-night -that on the score of public policy there can be no prejudice whatever in allowing these British subjects to vote without putting any obstacles in their way. Thirdly, I think it was shown, not so much by myself, as by my friends from the West, that the necessity of obtaining a voting certificate makes it virtually impossible for some of the people in the West to vote. The leader of the Opposition, in the debate some three weeks ago, when my amendment was first introduced, showed quite conclusively that people would have to travel in some cases upwards of a hundred miles in order to appear before a judge to obtain a voting certificate. I think it should be evident to every member of the committee that under circumstances such as those it becomes practically impossible for the citizens of Canada to comply with the regulations, and the result will be that they will be entirely disfranchised.
There is another point. When these people appear before the various judges throughout the country, we are not assured that there is any definite standard by which they shall be judged. One judge may consider it incumbent upon him to make the questions which he will submit to the applicant very much more onerous than other judges will. I do not think that these people to-day know exactly what they will have to answer

or what the requirements will be; whether they shall have to bring their husbands' naturalization certificates, and their marriage certificates to show that they are married to British subjects, and prove that they are qualified for naturalization. During the course of last year's debate, and this year's debate, I may say with all due respect to the Acting Solicitor General and other gentjemen on the other side who took part in the discussion, there was not offered one single reasonable ground why these people should be submitted to the necessity of obtaining the certificate. I will make one qualification in this respect, and I mentioned it the other day. The hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) made the statement that, if my amendment were adopted, foreign women, immediately upon marrying British subjects, would themselves become British subjects, and thus obtain the franchise without having completed any definite period of residence in Canada. That is a valid objection. 1 believe that all citizens of Canada should comply with the ordinary residence clauses of the Naturalization Act, and that these women, if they come from a foreign land, and marry British subjects, should not be permitted to vote until they have complied with the ordinary residential requirements.
I am quite prepared to substitute, in place of the clause I have moved to strike out, another clause to the effect that under all circumstances these British subjects, whose rights we are now discussing, shall comply with the ordinary residence clauses and any other requirements usual under the circumstances.
Now, the question has been surrounded with difficulty, merely because of the anomaly of having two laws which are diametrically opposed to each other. It is entirely unnatural that one Canadian law should provide one thing, and another Canadian law state directly the opposite; and that is the fact in this case. In our Naturalization Law we say that these people are British subjects. And that is the law not only in Canada; it obtains throughout the whole of the British Empire. We have, then, a law which states that when a woman marries a British subject, or if her husband of foreign origin becomes a British subject, she herself is a British subject, and then we say in the Dominion Elections Act, passed last year, that she is not a British subject. I say the whole thing is irreconcilable and absurd, and it is because of the fact that we are legislating in direct opposition to another law that we fall into the difficulty in which [Mr. Euler. I
we are now. I think there is only one cure for that; one law must give way to the other, and I leave it to the good judgment of the committee as to whether the law which has stood for years and which is the law throughout the whole of the British Empire, the principle of which is observed in every civilized nation in the world, should not be the one to stand, and that the law which this Parliament has brought into conflict with that old well recognized statute should give way. If that is done, we shall fall in line with the amendment I have submitted.
My amendment means, in effect, that instead of placing British subjects of foreign origin in a separate class, distinct from other British subjects, we remove all these differences we ourselves have created, and which did not exist in the past, and place all British subjects on the same basis, deciding that once a man or woman is a British subject that fact carries with it the greatest privilege of British citizenship, namely, the right to vote without any obstacles being placed in the way. That is what my amendment means. Now, I know there is a disposition on the part of some members opposite to resist that motion, I believe also that many hon. gentlemen on the other side concede that the cause I plead is an absolutely just one; but those who still feel that what I ask for in the amendment should not be granted, I suggest, have wrong ideas of the citizens whose rights I want to maintain in this committee. The Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) stated in a previous debate that, after all, there is nothing wrong with the law as it stands because, as he says, we are not taking anything away from these people. I want to correct him in that statement, because, as a matter of fact, men who were naturalized as boys many years ago, through the naturalization of their fathers, have voted for many years. I know of many of them; I think my hon. friend from North Perth (Mr. Morphy), knows of some, and I know that other hon. members are aware of others. They have voted for years; they voted in the election of 1917. Now, under the present Dominion Elections Act, you take away from them that privilege which they have enjoyed for years, except on the condition that they obtain this certificate. It is perhaps true that with regard to the women, those who were naturalized by the naturalization of their husbands, you are not depriving them of anything through the Act passed last year. But if you do not take anything away from them, you do something that is

equivalent; you withhold from them something that is given to other British subjects; you refuse to give them what you freely give to their sister British subjects. You are exercising a discrimination among women who are all alike Canadian citizens; you set one group of British subjects agide in an inferior class as compared with their neighbours. There is absolutely no escape from that. We make them citizens by our own law, and then we say to them: "While you are British subjects by our own law, and while we know that you are no longer subjects of any foreign country"-I am not now referring to the central empires, but to all foreign countries outside of the North American continent-[DOT] "we insist that you are not entitled to exercise the. franchise, unless you are put to the inconvenience and humiliation of appearing before a judge to prove that you are fit to be what you have been for many years." That is the fact: you are to appear before a judge and prove to him that you are fit and qualified to be what you have been for many, many years. I say the whole conclusion is absurd. Now that is a fair statement of the facts, and I say it is not surprising that men, and women too, put to that humiliation will be prompted to refuse to subject themselves to it. I believe that many will decline to apply to a judge for that certificate, and it will be a most natural attitude for free and self-respecting Canadian women to take.
The Acting Solicitor General stated the other day that these people could not value the franchise very highly if they would not go to the trouble of appearing before a judge. Well, I want to say to him if that is correct he would find, if he applied the same requirement throughout to the men of Canada, that the electorate would be disfranchised to the extent of 75 per cent or more. Even to-day when men have their names on the lists and need take no action whatever to get their names on, we find that they do not go to the polls. In our municipal elections, and even in our Parliamentary elections, we find that 50 per cent of them usually do not exercise their franchise at all. I am still of opinion, Mr. Chairman, that a good many of the hon. members opposite have a wrong impression of these people entirely. I am willing to say that because I do not like to attribute any unfair motive to them in withholding the unrestricted franchise from these British subjects; and it seems to me that when they think of these foreign born citizens of Canada they visualize probably groups
of foreigners. I have heard gentlemen on both sides speak of these foreign born citizens of Canada as aliens and foreigners, and yet to-day they are not aliens or foreigners. I am afraid they visualize these, perhaps, as ignorant and illiterate and out of harmony with the rest of the people of Canada, thinking constantly of a foreign land as their home. Such a picture is an undoubted caricature of these people. Among the people that I represent, and among the people in other parts of Canada, there are thousands of persons of foreign birth-many of them in my own constituency I admit-who are of German or Austrian birth, but no inconsiderable number of them have been in Canada for forty, fifty, sixty years, and even longer than that. I know people in Waterloo county who have lived there for seventy years and yet were born in Germany. Many of theft! came to Canada as children. They married and became British subjects, either by reason of that marriage or by reason of their father's naturalization. They reared families of Canadians, native born sons and daughters of Canada. They are Canadians in every sense of the term; they have attended our Canadian public schools and they are saturated through and through with Canadian ideals.


Hugh Guthrie: If they are native
born-


William Daum Euler: Just a moment, the point I want to make is this: I say that the mothers of those children who have been educated in the Canadian public schools surely have nio noxious attachment to a foreign land and are in no sense disloyal. Their husbands are Canadian citizens and have the vote, and their children are Canadians, native born. They are just as much Canadians as though they had been born in England, Scotland or Ireland, I contend, and are to all intents and purposes Canadian in thought and' feeling. I know what I am talking about because I know them -they are just as much Canadian as though they had been born in the British Isles. Surely it is fair to assume that the mothers of these children, the wives of these men who were also foreign born, are at least as loyal as their husbands and just as much entitled to the franchise-the whole family is one. I do not think any hon. member will contend for a moment that in a family consisting of father and mother, and children born in Canada, the mother herself is an alien in thought and feeling while the rest of the family are perfectly

loyal Canadians. I do not think that we should suspect the mother of any such feeling at all. There is no divergence of national feeling, as far as the mother is concerned, from the rest of the family.


Richard Coe Henders: The father had come into the rights of citizenship by declaring his desire for citizenship, under certain conditions. The mother comes in by right of marriage to that man. She has never declared her desire on that line. How then would you bring her in?


Hugh Guthrie: The man has sworn an oath of allegiance.


Richard Coe Henders: That is the point I was coming to. The man has taken the oath of allegiance and he takes the right of the franchise. She came into citizenship on her husband's right to be a citizen, but she did not have the right of the franchise. Now she comes into an entirely different relationship and she should not come into that relationship until she has complied with the same requirement which is demanded of her husband.
' Mr. EULER: I might ask the hon. member another question: Why is she not given the privilege, under our Canadian law to-day, of becoming a British subject of her own right? We have deprived her of that. At the very end of last session the naturalization law was actually changed in that regard. In 1919 we had a naturalization law whereby a married woman had the right to become personally naturalized and receive her naturalization certificate. I see the Minister of Justice is here and he will correct me if I am wrong in that statement. Last session when the Naturalization Act was changed, this new legislation was enacted. For some reason or other, I am not attributing any wrongful motive in the matter at all, that clause was dropped out of the Act, and to-day a married woman has only one way of getting citizenship and that is by marriage. She cannot herself be personally naturalized as a single woman can, or as her husband can. If you are going to discriminate in that way between men and women, then I say you cannot have an inequality in one place and then complain because there is an apparent inequality in another.
Now I was speaking of these women, the women who have raised Canadian childlren. Objection is raised to giving these women the vote, although they are British subjects. That is the thing I
	'
would like hon. gentlemen to remember- they are British subjects. Well, there is not very much in it unless you give them the franchise that should accompany that position. There can be no public interest prejudiced by giving them the franchise. Now the point I am trying to make is this:	If the objection arises from a possible lack of sympathy on the part of these women with Canadian ideals-if that is the reason-I am trying to show the unlikelihood of there being any such feeling when the husband, and all the other members of the family are duly considered British subjects and loyal subjects of the Crown. I say it is entirely unlikely that these women-whose whole thought is not given to politics or perhaps in many cases to public affairs at all, who are merely good domestic women whose chief thought is concerned1 with their husbands and their families-are alien in thought. They are just as good Canadians as the men are, and on that basis I maintain it is perfectly safe to give, them the franchise.
I contend, Mr. Chairman, in a land where not only fair play but courtesy is supposed to be a principle that is highly regarded, it is not at all chivalrous to ask these men and women, particularly the women, to appear before a judge and prove to him that now, ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty or even forty years after the time they became Britisfy subjects, they are again worthy of what they have been enjoying so long. . I might add that the law as it stands discriminates against women who sent their boys to the war. Moreover, I can give instances, and I know there are other members who can also give instances of practical disfranchisement, through forcing them to obtain certificates, of men who actually fought in the Canadian army. There is no exception made in their case. It is humiliating and unworthy of a Parliament which desires to encourage and confirm these foreign-born people in their appreciation of this country to enact such a law. You are dividing the members of a family, you are saying that one portion is not as worthy as the other. It is very similar to this, if I may give an illustration which just comes into my mind. We will say a father and mother who have children of their own, adopt a boy or girl who grows up with the other children and is treated to all intents and purposes as if one of the family. Then suddenly, for no apparent reason, when the family get around the table the father says to the

adopted child, "After all, you cannot sit down with us without performing some unpleasant duty." This requirement is just as unreasonable.
There is one other point. Advertise this law as widely as you .like, there will still be thousands of people who will never learn that it is necessary for them to obtain this certificate. They know now that the vote has been given to women, they know they are British subjects, and therefore they naturally assume that^they are placed on exactly the same basis as the woman next door who happens to have been born in Canada. I want to remind hon. gentlemen who have objected to the position I take that when a person of foreign origin receives a naturalization certificate from this country that certificate states that that person is just as much a British subject as though bom on British soil. Now we make a distinction,
I believe I am stating nothing but the fact when I say that unless this law is amended its practical effect will be to disfranchise more British subjects than were disfranchised under the War-time Elections Act. I am quite sure there are hon. gentlemen on the other side who were not in sympathy with that Act, while there are others who thought it was proper in time of war. I am not going to debate that now. But the war is over, and I contend that, after all, this obstacle that has been placed in the way of these British subjects is an outcome of the war period, and I think it is about time we allowed that war feeling to subside.
When I moved this amendment last year I asked then what I am asking for now. The Government, through the Acting Solicitor General, then gave us t something. As the law was first proposed last year a great many people would have found it entirely impossible to obtain the vote. The Government gave us an amendment which allowed the vote provided this certificate was obtained. I thought then that the Government gave only half justice, but, as the minister said then, "half a loaf is better than no bread." I hoped then that after the lapse of another year the Government might perhaps see the justice of what we were contending for. I wish they could see it in that way now and would strike out this objectionable clause. No public interest can be prejudiced, and I think a great deal would be gained by promoting harmony of feeling if the Government would remove this injustice in the most natural way by laying down the 269
principle that when a man or woman of mature age is a British subject that status shall carry with it an inherent right to the franchise.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, I can add very much to what I have said both on a former occasion this session and eleven months ago when this question occupied several days of the time of this House. I think my hon. friend from North Waterlo"o (Mr. Euler) himself realizes that perhaps the strongest point of his case rests in the fact that the clause as now drawn might operate to place at a disadvantage some men who fought for Canada and who voted at the last general election. That fact was not drawn to my attention before. But my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Hay) has made some suggestions which I think the House might take into consideration. I would not favour the motion of my hon* friend from North Waterloo to strike out the clause in the present Bill, but I think it might be altered to the extent of enabling those who voted at the last election to continue to vote without requiring them to get a certificate.


John Archibald Campbell: Do you mean those who actually voted or those who were entitled to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: Both. That would cover minor children. I am told that in many ridings there are hundreds of men who came to this country as children and became British subjects through the naturalization of their parents and have been voting for many years. That objection might be removed.
Then there is one further suggestion which my hon. friend from Selkirk likewise made to me that I would not take exception to, to the effect that the clause should not apply even to women who voted at the last general election or who had a right to vote. It is said there were women whose sons were at the war and who voted. I do not think there should be any discrimination against those women now, whether they be mothers or sisters or wives; if they had the right to vote then I would not object to its being continued.
Those are limitations which have been suggested by my hon. friend from Selkirk, and while I cannot favour striking out the clause as moved by hon. friend from North Waterloo-that is too sweeping in my judgment- I would not be the one to oppose some limitation of the clause in the way I have suggested. If the committee is ready to deal with the motion of my hon. friend from North Waterloo I think that



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
an amendment will probably be moved on the lines which I have just suggested. It would remove all difficulty in the case of children who have grown up in this country and in the case of people who voted or were entitled to vote at the last election. But the restriction would still apply to married women who have become British subjects by reason of naturalization of their husbands and who have made no declaration, from whom no oath or naturalization has ever been taken. All they would have to do would be to go before a judge and get a certificate.
Mr. MacNUTT:: That would not apply to Germans or Hungarians?


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes, to everybody.


Thomas MacNutt: Because they were not entitled to vote at the last election.


Hugh Guthrie: No, I suppose that Germans and Austrians were not.


Thomas MacNutt: Would you cut them
out?


Hugh Guthrie: It would just depend on how the amendment was drawn. I would not be in favour of cutting out a boy who fought for the Allies. I would be in favour of giving him a vote if the clause can be so drawn.


Mr. WHITE:: Would you be in favour of giving votes to female relatives, mothers and sisters, as was the case with soldiers overseas during the war?


Hugh Guthrie: That is what I said.


Thomas MacNutt: 
Hugh Guthrie: No, I did not say that
I was bringing in an amendment.


Thomas MacNutt: Well, he suggested
that an amendment might be brought in to do away with the serious objections regarding the status of men who voted	at	the last	election but
never	were personally naturalized.
At the last election many who had voted before and who were naturalized, were not entitled to vote, and consequently, they would be debarred. I think, now that the war is over, an amendment of that kind should be passed to cover all that were entitled to vote before the War-time Elections Act was enacted. The matter of discrimination in favour of those who were born in North America is a very serious objection to this clause. Supposing a Hungarian comes to Pennsylvania and is married to a woman of the same nationality born in the United States. They have a family and they move to Canada. This is
269J
typical of hundreds of cases. The man becomes naturalized, and his wife and children are by process of law naturalized. They are all allowed to vote if they are of age and are otherwise qualified, without having to obtain a certificate. Supposing a Hungarian comes to Canada directly under the same circumstances. His wife and his children after they come of age must have this certificate before they can vote. There is no particular reason, however, to expect that the wife and children of the Hungarian who came directly from Hungary- and the same thing is true as regards any of the other European countries-knows more about our institutions than the Hungarian who comes from the United States; so that this is a discrimination that should be struck out altogether.
If the intention of the Government is to retain this clause and not to accept the amendment of the hon. member for North Waterloo, (Mr. Euler), it should be made a good deal easier for applicants to obtain this certificate to which they are entitled.
I have already mentioned that district judges cannot grant certificates to all who may want them. They have too much work to do; they are, perhaps, only half a day or a day at one particular point; there might be fifty or a hundred applicants for certificates, and they must make their dates. Under certain conditions others, for instance, reeves of municipalities or mayors of certain towns, might be qualified to give certificates. Further, it should be set forth what kind of evidence is required, and this should not be left to the judge or whoever may be administering the Act. People will not travel, perhaps, fifty or seventy-five miles on the off chance of having access to a judge and not knowing what evidence is required. Women may have to bring their husbands along with them; they may have to make affidavits as to their identity, but they do not know what is required of them. If that point were made clear, more would take advantage of this provision. Two things are required). Better facilities should be given for obtaining these certificates, and the applicants should know what evidence they have' to bring before the judge or whoever may have power to grant the certificates. The Government will be very well advised to accept the amendment of the hon. member for North Waterloo.


Richard Smeaton White: The ground has been so
well covered by the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler); he has made such

a strong argument in favour of this amendment toeing accepted and has pointed out t. e injustice that is going to be done to a large number of citizens, that I think it is unnecessary to dwell very much on that point. If we look back over the last twenty-five years before we made such discriminations as are proposed in this Bill and these unnecessary divisions, this country was getting along pretty well, and we were getting a fairly intelligent expression of opinion from the provinces in which these people reside. I can remember that in the constituency which I represent, the Conservative candidate in 1908 got 53 per cent of the foreign vote as we figured it out. I can see no reason for this discrimination unless it is feared that, owing to the injustice done to these people in the last election, the Government is afraid that it will not get their support. No other good reason has been offered. These people behaved well during the war; while evry precaution was taken and the Mounted Police, as I pointed out once before in this chamber, worked through those districts, there was not, in any of the three northern constituencies, one case proved of sedition or treason. That was a fair test of citizenship when people of the same blood as our enemies and many with relatives fighting against us, did not show even by one word that they were not loyal or worthy of citizenship.
As regards the hardships that has been pointed out by the hon. member for North Waterloo, the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) may not toe aware of the difficulties and obstacles that these people will meet with in a new country if they try to secure their citizenship. Take, for instance, a large number, not only those of alien Origin, but people from Belgium, Prance and other countries supposed to be friendly to Canada, who reside in the northern part of Alberta and in the Peace river district. It would cost some of them $500 and many days' travel to appear before a judge. The Acting Solicitor General knows that a judge visits these districts only every three months, and there are many streams to cross and only one railroad into this section of (Canada. Some settlers reside as much as 100 miles away from where the court is held; they are really disfranchised, and there is no possible chance of their securing their vote. While we are trying to build up citizenship and to make Canadians out of these people, this discrimination will keep them from becoming citizens. In 1917, there was a pro-
	.
vincial election and the women were given the vote; the foreign-born women all voted as well as the men. In the fall of 1917, many of the men and all of the women were not allowed to vote. A provincial election is almost due again and it may take place this summer. There is one taking place in Saskatchewan now. On June 13, or whenever the election is held, every woman will go to the polls and be able to vote under the old naturalization law, and the same is true with regard to the Alberta election, but in the Dominion election, they will not be allowed to vote unless certain conditions are complied with. The only reason must be that the Government are afraid of how these people will vote at the polls on account of the injustice that has been done to them. I do not see what other reason there can be for imposing these conditions. The behaviour of these people has not been bad, even under a very severe test, and the only explanation I can think of is that the Government fear they will vote against the party. We cannot expect to make good citizens of these people when we have one law for the province and another for the Dominion. The minister has stated that these women have the privilege of applying for their certificate just the same as their husbands, but even apart from the difficulty of getting to the place where the judge is holding court, it must be remembered that the men have other reasons for acquiring their certificate. For instance, citizenship is one of the conditions required before they can secure their land. I think the effect of this provision will be that many women will be apt to neglect getting a certificate. I think it would be in the interests of the country if the Government would treat all citizens alike; either refuse them citizenship altogether and keep them out of the country, or give them all the same privileges in regard to Canadian citizenship. I do not think there is a single argument in favour of keeping these people out of their rights, and I trust that if the minister will not accept this amendment as it stands, he will accept it in a modified form at least, in order to remove the hardship which at present exists in the law.


Levi Thomson: I do not wish to repeat the arguments that have been made in support of the amendment, with which I thoroughly agree, nor do I propose to argue the merits of an amendment which may come up later on, as there will be opportunity to discuss it when it comes up. I want to emphasize, however,

some of the things that have been said, and said very frequently, in the presence of the minister, and which have never yet been replied to by him so far as I have heard.
We have heard of the difficulties in the matter of interpretation. If this committee were strung out as a class, and certain questions were put to them as to the meaning of this subsection, I am afraid there would be a tremendous variation in the answers. I do not think one quarter of the members of this committee have any clear idea of the meaning of the subsection with which we are dealing, and that point has been brought to the attention of the minister frequently. I do not know whether the minister has any clear idea of it himself. I would like to know his opinion as to the real meaning of this subsection. My hon. friend from Saltcoats (Mr. Mac-Nutt) has mentioned the case of a judge who did not know just what information to ask for, and had no settled policy, and there is no doubt at all that different judges will follow different lines. It seems to me that we ought to have something definite in the Bill for the guidance of the judges in the first place, as to what questions they are to ask, and if that is necessary for the guidance of the judges, surely it is more necessary that we should let the people who are going to apply for the certificates know what information will be required of them.
I think if the members of this committee were asked just what information should be given under this section, most of them would not have a very clear idea, and we can therefore hardly expect the people who are applying for certificates to have a very clear understanding of what is required.
Is it necessary for a person who is to apply for a voting certificate to bring along a marriage certificate, naturalization certificate, and all these other papers? Is it necessary for them to prove that they have a knowledge of either English or French? Is it necessary for them to bring witnesses to testify to their good reputation? Just what is necessary? It would be a simple matter to have inserted in the Bill itself just what information is required, so that these people will know what is expected. As it is, they do not know what information they will be expected to produce before the judge.
I would also urge on the minister what has been so often urged before, that there should be some more convenient way provided for these people to get their certificates. Some members have spoken of their experience in the recent vote on prohibition. In my locality there are many women, and sons of naturalized British subjects under our present law, but I do not think a single one of them in my particular locality applied for a voting certificate. No matter how they felt on the question, the difficulties were so great that they did not trouble. In regard to this matter of making the machinery more convenient, the minister has "passed the buck" so to speak, to the Provincial Governments. He contends that they should make provision for sittings. No doubt they can make provision for sittings for hearing ordinary legal * cases, but I think some direction should be given to the judges from here as to whether or not they are to take cases of this kind, not only at the judicial centre, but at other places where they may hold court. I know that in the matter of naturalization some of the judges will not consider an application except at the judicial centre. I think it should be clearly understood whether or not the judges have the right to grant a certificate except at a judicial centre. Will it be necessary for a person who is applying for a voting certificate to go through all the forms and ceremonies that have to be gone through when applying for naturalization? Will it be necessary to have notice of the application posted up in the office of the clerk of the court for a certain length of time in advance? I think we oifght to get a little information from the minister along these lines.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Did I understand the minister to say that he would bring in some amendment as suggested as by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Hay) ?


Hugh Guthrie: I said that when this motion was disposed of, I understood that an amendment would be submitted by the hon. member for Selkirk.


Joseph Archambault: I would bring to the attention of the committee again the case I cited last year, of a Frenchman who came to Canada in 1904 with his wife and son. He was naturalized in 1912, and of course his son and wife became naturalized by operation of law.


Hugh Guthrie: Was his son a minor then?


Joseph Archambault: He was a minor. When the war broke out the son went to the front; he fought in the French army and was decorated by the French Government. He came back in 1920. In 1917 he had the right to vote. Now, however, if he wishes to vote he will have to go

before the judge and get a certificate, and his mother, who devoted herself to war charities in Montreal, will have to do the same. It seems to me that this is most unjust, and there are many similar cases.


Hugh Guthrie: The amendment I have read covers that.


Mr. ARCH AM  B AULT@: It is not before the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are we to understand that the minister is prepared to endorse the amendment he has referred to?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know; I want to hear it discussed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that my hon. friend wants to drop this motion which is before the committee.


Hugh Guthrie: No; I want to take the sense of the committee on it; I did not ask to drop it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me understand what the minister wishes.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not wish anything; I want the matter to proceed. There is an amendment before the Chair, and after it is disposed of, I understand that it is proposed to move another amendment to which I have referred.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the attitude of a good many of us on this side would depend upon how far we felt the minister was disposed to go towards overcoming this obvious injustice of requiring a number of British subjects to get a certificate before being entitled to vote, and to do so under conditions which make it absolutely impossible for them to obtain that certificate. The amendment my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) has moved, aims at remedying that injustice. The minister has just stated that he understands an amendment will be presented a little later on that goes the length of suggesting that men and women entitled to vote at the last election-that is to say, those who belong to the class naturalized *by operation of law-should have the right to vote at any subsequent election. I am 'sure the minister would not wish to perpetuate discriminations that were created by the War Time Elections Act. There may be something to be said for the amendment he has just referred to, but there is certainly this to be said against it, that it is perpetuating discriminations created by the War Time Elections Act, and it helps to establish a privileged group 
of citizens, both men and women, created under a measure which it was distinctly stated had reference to the war alone, and which was repealed by Parliament after the close of the war. I can hardly think that it will make for better citizenship if we keep alive an injustice such as that measure created. I put this suggestion to the minister, because we are all anxious to come to some arrangement that will overcome this injustice: Would he be prepared to consider with equal favour the suggestion that men and women, natural-[DOT] ized by operation of law prior to the war, should be entitled to vote without having to obtain a certificate where it may be impossible for them to do so?


Hugh Guthrie: I considered that matter at the last session, and after giving careful study I intimated that I personally and the Government as well were not prepared to accept it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For what
reason?


Hugh Guthrie: It is too broad; it is much too sweeping.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Much too
sweeping in what way?


Hugh Guthrie: In my judgment it is much too sweeping in its application. The suggestion I made-and I see my hon. friend has tried to lug in the War Time Elections Act with it-was pretty broad itself. What I have heard urged time and again by the hon. member for North Waterloo, and what he always specifies, are cases of men who fought for Canada, who had votes at the last election, and who cannot vote now. Those are glaring cases, and if no amendment is moved in respect thereto, perhaps I will move one myself to remedy that situation.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Is not that a perpetuation of the War Time Elections Act?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is a deliberate and specific continuation of the War Time Elections Act.


Hugh Guthrie: Not as I would frame it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is a qualification based on war service.


Hugh Guthrie: 
William Daum Euler: Is not the very reason
why you will remove it .the fact that he was in the war? If so, that perpetuates the War Time Elections Act.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not removing it because he was in the war, because it would be removed from tens and hundreds of thousands of others who were not in the war.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What about the child's mother?


Hugh Guthrie: The other suggestion I made was that if the mother hitherto had the right to vote at a general election, I saw no objection to removing the disqualification in respect of her. In its application it might mean that only those women who voted at the last general election would be entitled to vote under the proposal I have just made. However, I am not going to insist on the suggestion. If my hon. friends think it is objectionable, as perpetuating the War Time Elections Act, let us do away with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might ask my hon. friend whether any women had the right to vote at the last election apart from the War Time Elections Act?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, is not this perpetuating that Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Well, let us drop that part of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not to the credit of the Government to attempt to perpetuate the War Time Elections Act as* they are seeking to do. Here is a case where there are hundreds, yes thousands, of women, British subjects, who have the right to vote given them by law, but who are required to do something which it is impossible for them to do before they can exercise that right. There is no justice in legislation of that kind. All that we ask is that the Government remove from certain classes of people an obstruction which it has set up with the deliberate purpose of depriving them of the right to vote. When you have a constituency in which there are only one or two judges
holding court on one or two days in one or two months of the year, to oblige thousands of individuals to go before them to get certificates before they are entitled to vote is deliberately to disfranchise and that is the injustice which we complain of and which is complained of throughout the whole Dominion. To try to remedy that situation by introducing the War Time Elections Act and perpetuating discriminations created thereby is to make confusion worse confounded and to add insult to injury.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muskoka) :: Where was the insult and where was the injury.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the committee
ready for the question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: No, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to ask the minister who is in charge of this Bill a question. It is quite within the power of an enumerator in a rural district, or of a registrar in an incorporated town or city, to place on the list a person who is disqualified under clause 2 of section 29. Well, take the case of a rural enumerator. Here is a woman, the wife of a foreign-born resident who has since become naturalized and is a British subject entitled to vote. The enumerator places this woman's name on the list. It may be that he thinks the woman in question will vote the candidate he favours. When the woman's name is on the list has she the right to vote?


Hugh Guthrie: No, she is just in the same position as anybody else who is on the list. When she comes for her ballot and takes the oath I suppose they will not stop her from voting, but if she does, she renders herself liable to prosecution.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: What oath will she take?


Hugh Guthrie: That question was very much discussed in the Privileges and Elections Committee. The oath which is now in the Bill was framed by the Chief Electoral Officer and he said it covered all disqualifications. The first clause requires that she shall not belong to one of the disqualified classes. If she swears to that and does belong to one she will get into trouble.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Under the amending
Bill what are the disqualified classes?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not going to discuss this because I gave my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle an intimation a few moments ago that if there was anything wrong with the oaths in the forms I would very much prefer to have a conference with

the Chief Electoral Officer to which anybody who likes can come. These forms at first were badly framed, but they have been very carefully revised. Mr. Alexander Smith of Ottawa, I think, was at the conference when this oath was prepared. He was at the meeting and suggested that it should be changed, but I would not like to undertake any changes in the forms themselves unless Colonel Biggar, the Chief Electoral Officer, was present. If hon. gentlemen think there are any defects in them I would be very glad if -they would point them out.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: My hon.
friend would save himself and the country a great deal of trouble by accepting the amendment of the hon. member for North Waterloo. I was always against the War Time Elections Act. I spoke against it when it was introduced, owing to the way in which it was enacted, and I have never varied my opinion since. I say this is merely a continuation of it, and I should be heartily ashamed to support the retention of that principle in the Act. I say that the Government, in the interests of the country and of fair play and justice, should accept the amendment of the hon. member for North Waterloo.


Mr. McGIBBON (Muslroka):: jWhat
principle in that Act would my hon. friend be ashamed of?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would be ashamed of accepting the principle in the Act as it now stands.


Peter McGibbon: Answer
my question. You made the statement and you should be prepared to explain it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The discrimination against certain classes of Canadian citizens, that is all.


Georges Henri Boivin: Is the committee
ready for the question?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The minister intimated a moment ago, if I understood him aright, that he would be prepared to have a reconsideration of the oaths submitted in the case of such a person as I mentioned a moment ago. Might I suggest to my hon. friend that he should let the matter stand until such a conference could take place and have the thing cleared up?


Hugh Guthrie: 
Georges Henri Boivin: It was so ruled.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the forms may be defective, and it is exceedingly kind of my hon. friend to arrange an interview after the legislation is passed and we will have no opportunity of making any change whatever. That does not get us anywhere, that is simply trifling with the question if my hon. friend will permit me to say so. We want to settle this matter right off, if it is possible to do so, and get it right. This legislation does contain a grave discrimination, I have no hesitation in saying to the committee that it is un-British legislation absolutely, and as a Canadian I am ashamed to see it on the statute books of Canada. If it is possible to clear this matter up let us get it cleared up; but when my hon. friend says we can have a conference, what use will that be after the legislation is through?
I submit that the Government should accept the amendment offered by my hon. friend from North Waterloo.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not on the question of forms.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I know.it is not on the
question of forms. I am not discussing the question of forms at the present moment, I am discussing the principle of this legislation. It is discriminatory legislation and it is not fair. My hon. friend suggests that he might possibly consider an amendment by my hon. friend from Selkirk if he sees fit to move an amendment, but I submit the whole course of the Government in this matter has been un-British.


Peter McGibbon: Of course, Mr. Chairman, we all realize that when the hon. member for Marquette has spoken the last word has been said and there is nothing left to do but sing the Doxology and go home. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that my hon. friend has to produce better evidence than he has done that this legislation is un-British. I submit that he has no right to make such a statement without proving it.


Joseph Archambault: Is my hon. friend rising to a point of order?

i


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I decline to be lectured
in political morality by my hon. friend. I *will say more for the benefit of my hon. friend from Muskoka. If any legislation of this kind-


Hugh Guthrie: Order. Who has the
floor?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My hon. friend from Muskoka sat down.


Peter McGibbon: Let him go on.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: The minister should not
get excited over this matter?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not excited.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if legislation of this character was introduced by a responsible member in the British House of Commons he would be driven from public life. That is one reason why it is discriminatory legislation.


Peter McGibbon: What is your authority for this statement?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: My authority for the
statement is that every British subject heretofore has had the right to vote. Under this legislation as it stands now that right is taken away from him. Not only is it taken away from him, but it is taken away from British subjects who have gone overseas to fight. Indeed I know of cases of the kind. They were mentioned when the matter was under discussion here before in the case of a man-


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Very well, I will speak
louder. Some of my friends opposite have defective hearing apparently, and I do not wonder at it when they are considering this legislation.


John Wesley Edwards: Do not get excited.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Take the case of an Icelander who came to this country forty years ago. He brought with him infant children. He qualified as a British subject and he has exercised the franchise for years. His male children when they reached the age of twenty-one years also exercised the franchise. Those children enlisted, went overseas and fought in the war under the Canadian flag. They voted when they were overseas. Now they have coane back here and under this legislation they must go to a judge and get a certificate before they can vote. I put it to my hon. friend from Muskoka if that is British legislation. I ask him the question. Why, Sir, the thing
is absurd. I hope the minister who is considering this legislation will accept the amendment of my hon. friend from North Waterloo. It is a reasonable amendment that will commend itself to the judgment of the people of the Dominion, and will at least remove the disgrace that attaches to this legislation now whereby men who went overseas and fought for Canada are put to the humiliation of going before a judge to get a certificate to enable them to exercise their rights of citizenship. The whole question is one that does not reflect any credit on the Government.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: The hon. member for Saltcoats and also the hon. member for Qu'Appelle pointed out to the minister and to the committee the great hardship and difficulty it was for these people to get certificates. When this matter was before the House some time ago the minister stated that if these people thought anything of the franchise they would see to it that they got a certificate. I might say to. the minister and to the Committee that we will know in the case of compiling voters' lists in the cities that although notices are posted at every street corner residents have almost to be driven to personally register. In the case of these people I pointed out last year that many of them would have to travel miles and would have to remain from home over night at considerable expense in order to get this certificate. I have in my hand a clipping from a Western paper about this matter. It is headed:
Many Foreign Women Unable to Cast Votes Beside Too Far From Judicial Center to Secure Certificate From Judge
A very considerable number of women of foreign birth in Saskatchewan, who are legally entitled to vote on the prohibition referendum on Mondax will be unaibie to exercise the franchise on account of the restrictions prescribed under the Dominion Elections Act of 1920, according to Rev. Hug Dobson.
I would not ask the hon. member to pay much attention to my word, hut probably he will think the word of a reverend gentleman is worthy of notice.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was he a Presbyterian?


John Frederick Johnston: This clipping continues :
Mr. Dobson referred to women of foreign birth who are wives of British subjects by birth or naturalization or wives of men born on the North American continent.
"Such woman," said Mr. Dobson yesterday, "who were disfranchised under the War Time Elections Act are now permitted to vote under the amending act but before doing so they are required to secoure a certificate from a judge.

There are large numbers of these women who reside anywhere from 50 to 300 or 400 miles from a judicial center and they have little opportunity of securing the required certificate.
I was very conservative, Mr. Chairman, when I brought this matter to the attention of the minister last year and told him that in my constituency there were sections from which women would have to travel fifty or sixty miles.
"The act," continued Mr. Dobson, "does not provide for the judge to go out into these districts for the purpose of giving certificates, and so far as I am aware, there is only one judge in the province who has done so.
"In other words," said Mr. Dobson, "while the new act ostensibly repairs the disfranchisement clauses of the War Time Elections Act, in actual practise it does not do so in very many oases."
That is the impartial opinion of men who was brought in close contact with the working of this Act.
Another matter brought to the attention of the minister to-night by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle was the questions to be asked by the judge of applicants for this certificate. I think it is fair to say that no two judges would ask the same questions. What do these applicants know about the matter before going to the judge? Are they to take their naturalization certificates or their marriage certificates, or what do they require? It is only fair that these people should know what is required of them before they start out on their journey to the pudge.
,1 think it has been pointed out on many occasions that some people seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that those who are protesting against this legislation are seeking something for foreigners. This is not the case. These people are British subjects, and this legislation is discriminating against them. The hon. member far Macdonald asked if these people who have become British subjects 'by operation of law should not do something in a personal way to show they were worthy of naturalization. If that principle is to be accepted, Mr. Chairman, should it not also apply to all others of that class? But it does not so apply. I think the hon. member for Marquette did not speak too strongly in expressing his objection to this legislation. Under the War Time Elections Act the people knew exactly what it meant; under this they do not; and I think the Government should accept the amendment offered by the hon. member for North Waterloo.
Amendment (Mr. Euler) negatived on division: yeas, 46; nays, 72.


Mr. HAY:: If I am now in order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to move an amendment to section 29 of the Elections Act. I did not support the amendment of the hon. member for North Waterloo because I thought it was a little too sweeping in character. I see no reason why women who were minors when their parents became naturalized or were not naturalized through marriage should object to establishing their right to be placed on the voter's list by applying to a judge and obtaining a certificate to the effect that they are qualified to appear on the list. That is one reason why I did not vote for the amendment. With reference to the present provision of the Bill I believe that if it is allowed to remain it will prove to be a great hardship to a large number of people in Western Canada, especially in the older districts. In the towns and villages it might not work any great hardship, but in the outlying districts, particularly in the western provinces, it certainly would work great hardships. The settlements in the West are scattered over a large area. Courts are held at very few points, perhaps in an electoral division and a man or a woman would have to 1 a.m. travel a great distance in order to establish the right to be placed on the list. It would mean not only a great loss of time but a financial loss as well, and the pioneer settlers on the western prairies are not, as a rule, very well fixed financially. That is one reason why I object to the Bill as it stands. It should be the aim of the Government to make it as easy as possible for men and women who are qualified to have their names put on the voter's list, and under this Bill as drafted it will be difficult for them to do that. Now, I do not agree with all the arguments advanced by the mover of the amendment which has just been voted down. He said that the passing of the Bill in its present form would place a stigma on women and would be the means of keeping them from appearing before a judge. We must remember that at present women have to appear before the officers charged with the duty of preparing the lists in order to establish the right to have their names placed thereon. Now, it is not my intention to deal with this matter at any length. I wish to move an amendment, as follows:
Section 29 of the said Act is amended by adding at the end of subseotion 2 thereof the following:
Provided also that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to persons who originally

came to Canada as minor children of parents who have subsequently become British subjects by naturalization, nor to women who became British subjects in consequence of marriage and who voted or were entitled to vote at the general election held in the year 1917.
That amendment, if accepted by the Government, will, I think, largely meet the. demands made by hon. gentlemen opposite and will do justice to those who come under its operation.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that if the committee is to adopt the amendment it should be adopted as section 2A. Then I suggest a little change in the wording. I would make the last clause read as follows:
Nor to women who Ibeeame British subjects in consequence of marriage and who have hitherto voted or have been entitled to vote at an election for the House of Commons.
It simply leaves out the rerference to the 1917 election. Will that suit the hon. member for Selkirk?


Thomas Hay: That is satisfactory.


John Archibald Campbell: Why put in the words "who have hitherto voted"? The words "entitled to vote" cover the whole thing.


Hugh Guthrie: I was not sure whether in the by-election held in Saskatchewan women had votes. I have so worded it that any woman who either voted or was entitled to vote at any election for the House of Commons should not be required to get a certificate.


Levi Thomson: Then a woman who voted improperly may be able to vote again?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not suppose there will be many of that class.
Mr. THOMSON (Qu'Appelle). Well, if there are any at all they should not come in under this provision. In any case, the words "hitherto voted" are surplusage.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, we will make it read: "who have hitherto been entitled to vote."


Georges Henri Boivin: The amendment as corrected by the hon. Acting Solicitor General reads as follows:
Section 29 of the said Act is amended by adding at the end of subsection 2 thereof the following words :
Provided also that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply to persons who originally came to Canada as minor children of parents who have subsequently become British subjects by naturalization, nor to women who became British subjects in consequence of marriage and who have hitherto been entitled to vote at an election for the House of Commons.


William Daum Euler: I am reminded to-night
somewhat of the situation last year when the Government was kind enough, if I may put it in that way, to yield a part of what we then desired. To-night, they have given a little more, and, perhaps, next year they will give us the whole of it. I want to give the minister and the Government fair warning now that if I am fortunate or unfortunate enough to be here next year if the thing is not settled right now, I am going to move again an amendment along the lines of my amendment of this year.


Mr. CALDWELL:: In case of an acclamation in 1917 where no lists were prepared, no names were put on the lists,, how would this work out?


Hugh Guthrie: As long as these people were entitled to vote, no lists are necessary.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In case of those
women who have to secure a certificate In order to vote, do they have to secure a certificate at every election, or does the one certificate entitle them to vote forever afterwards.


Hugh Guthrie: I think one certificate
would entitle them to vote forever afterwards.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why should the Government differentiate between children born in Canada and children who came to Canada very young? If you are going to allow children of foreigners who have become naturalized to get the benefit of the naturalization of their parents, why should you make any difference because they were born before they came to Canada? Are they not entitled to the same rights as if they were born in Canada? As I understand this amendment, it covers only children who name to Canada as minors. Why should not the same rights he given to children born in Canada of foreign parents?


Hugh Guthrie: They are British subjects if they are born in this country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the naturalization
of the mother is not recognized, how does her child become naturalized?


Hugh Guthrie: By our Naturalization Act, children horn in Canada are British subjects, hut children coming as *minors to Canada-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In the Act itself in
one breath you say that this woman is a British subject hut you immediately turn around and say that she is not entitled to vote.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought my hon.
friend was talking about the children.
Mr. MeKENZIE: I was talking about the children. I am talking about the children now. I look upon it is a foul blot upon our humanity and upon our statutes that we have a law which solemn, wise men enact in this Parliament to say that children born in Canada of a woman who is a British subject, are entitled to vote because they are born of that mother in Canada, but that the woman herself is not permitted to vote. I see that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) is getting a lot of fun and amusement out of my remarks. He is entitled to all the fun that he can get out of them. He is the last man in this country that I would expect to stand up for tyranny of this kind. It is nothing but tyranny; it is nothing but discrimination of the foulest kind; it is nothing but an exhibition of fear or cowardice, for fear that those people, if they are given the right, will exercise that right to blot this Government out of existence. That is why the Minister of Justice is, with glee, supporting this amendment, or having the law remain as it is. Were it not for that fear, were it not for that cowardice, every member of the Government would wipe this off the slate and give us a clean sheet and a clean law such as we ought to have. The Minister of Militia or the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) is such a learned, correct, delightfully comprehensive man, that he will not allow an ordinary member of the House to say a word without immediately taking him to task. I must tell the hon. gentleman that whenever I have anything to say which, I think, is in the interest of the people, of democracy, of fair play, of citizenship in this country,
I will say it in my own blunt, Scotch way, regardless of the frowns or threatenings of the hon. gentleman. His frowns and threats are on that side of the House today; and let me tell the Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) that when things change and the fats and emoluments are on our side of the House, he will see that he can play marbles on his coat-tails getting back. I see that the Government has been yielding a little each time that this matter comes up. We are almost clear of this thing altogether. This does not apply to women who were entitled to vote at the last election. Children who came here as infants, small children, are now clear of it. Is it worth while for us to have it apply to the remnant? It is not worth while; it is so cut down; it has been so chipped off from time to time that it will be better 
to dispose of it altogether, and I hope that the minister will do so.


William Daum Euler: I was merely going to
point out that the only person left in the family is the poor old mother or wife. All the rest can qualify; they need not apply for a certificate. Will the Solicitor General kindly tell me what is meant by the words "personally naturalized" which appear in the certificate? Do they mean what I think they mean, that the expression "personally naturalized" refers to the power of a person to go personally before a judge and obtain, not a voting certificate, but a naturalization certificate?


Hugh Guthrie: My idea of that is that she would have all the qualifications that are required under the Naturalization Act of a person who goes personally before a judge to make application. But as my hon. friend pointed out this evening, a married woman is not entitled to apply for naturalization. If she fulfills the requirements of the Act, she gets a certificate to that effect, and that is the meaning of the expession "personally naturalized" in the certificate.


William Daum Euler: I am not a lawyer, and, perhaps, my impression is not well founded; but after all the certificate says that the person who applies for it must be qualified and would be entitled at the date of the issue of this certificate to be personally naturalized in Canada. She must be capable of obtaining that naturalization certificate, I would judge.


Hugh Guthrie: Were it not for the
marriage disqualification.


William Daum Euler: There is no power for a married woman to obtain naturalization. Is it not possible then that when she applies before the judge, he will say to her: "There is nothing in the law that enables you to obtain personal naturalization. Therefore, I cannot give you a certificate." Is there any point in that?


Hugh Guthrie: Is not that the point we threshed out last year? I '*know we amended that provision last year at the request of my hon. friend.


William Daum Euler: But after that, we passed a new naturalization Act, and that clause was dropped out. I think it means that the woman who applies must have the qualifications necessary under the Naturalization Act. In that Naturalization Act there is no provision for the naturalized married woman at all.


Hugh Guthrie: That is the reason she has to apply for a certificate. If she could get a naturalization certificate she would not want this.


Levi Thomson: I did not hear what the minister said in reply to my hon. friend from North Waterloo, but it seems to me-it did not strike me before-that it is quite impossible for that naturalization certificate to be granted by the judge. I do not know whether it is necessary to bring it to the minister's attention but it seems to me that these women cannot obtain certificates of naturalization, and therefore if the judge is strict he is not entitled to grant a voting certificate. If I am right in my understanding of the Act, none of these women can possibly get personal naturalization. Therefore, it seems to me there is no one who will fill the bill here. The certificate under section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act of 1920 reads:
I am satisfied that A B . . . . is a person naturalized as a British subject by operation of law, who, but for such naturalization or for any disability contained in the Naturalization Act, 1920, 'is qualified and would be entitled at the date of the issue of this certificate to be per-eonnally naturalized in Canada.
Am I not right in interpreting that to mean that these women could not be granted that certificate?


Hugh Guthrie: That is not my view. I take the other view.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
By unanimous consent, the committee returned to the consideration of section 11 -hours of polling:
Mr. FRASER:: A number of Canadians living in he border cities work over in the United States and in order that they may have the opportunity to vote I move to add the following to section 11, as (6) A:
(6A) Upon application to the Chief Electoral Officer by any municipality situated upon or near the international boundary line the Chief Electoral Officer may in his discretion authorize a change in the hours of polling for all polls in such municipality in order to accommodate electors who are resident in Canada but whose occupation renders it necessary for them to be absent from Canada during the ordinary polling hours.
Such application ifor change of polling hours must be made to the Chief Electoral Officer at least ten days before the day appointed as nomination day and the Chief Electoral Officer shall notify the Returning Officer of any change in the hours of polling authorized by him and the same shall be duly announced by the Returning Officer at the time apointed for the nomination of candidates.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any definitions of "municipality" in this Act?
Is there any way further of compelling a municipality to make this request? Does it ensure any of the rights of a possible elector?


Hugh Guthrie: It just gives the
municipality the right to ask the Chief Electoral Officer to change the hours of polling in the border cities situated at or near the international boundary line. The chief Electoral Officer has absolute discretion whether to grant or refuse the request, and also as to the hours that shall be fixed. There are just three cities that are interested in the matter, I think, and they have all made the request. They are Niagara Falls, Windsor and Sarnia.


Mr. CAHILL:: What about Sault Ste. Marie?


Hugh Guthrie: The conditions there are practically the same.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 31-election officers, disqualification of:
Hugh Guthrie: Colonel Biggar has
drawn to my attention a defect that I think should be cured. It involves the first part of section 31 of the Elections Act.
The section provides:
The following persons shall be disqualified and incompetent to vote at an election for the electoral district for which, or for a portion of which they [DOT] hold their offices or positions
(a)	Returning officers and election clerks, but not deputy returning officers, registrars, poll clerks or constables, whether appointed by the returning officer or by a deputy returning officer, employed in connection with the election ;
(b)	Any person who, at any time, either before or during the election, has been or is employed by any other person to act at the same election or in reference thereto as counsel, attorney, solicitor, agent or clerk, or agent at any polling station at such election, or in any other capacity, and who has received, or expects to receive, either before, during, or after the said election, from any person, for acting in any such capacity, any sum of money, fee, office, place or employment, or any promise, pledge or security for any sum of money, fee, office, place or employment.
The Chief Electoral Officer points out that it is possible, if the real effect of the provisions of the present section 31 became widely known, that difficulty might be met in securing the services of election officers, and that it might be advisable to repeal the section and substitute the following amendment, which I beg to move:
"2B. Section 31 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:-

31. Subject to the exceptions hereinafter contained, every person employed by any person for pay or reward in reference to an election in any electoral district shall be disqualified from voting and incompetent to vote in such electoral district at such election.
(2) This section shall not extend to disqualify or render incompetent to vote the following persons (provided that such persons are otherwise qualified to vote and not disqualified from voting) namely,-
(a)	The returning officer in case of there being an equality of votes on the final addition of the votes or on a recount as hereinafter provided.
(b)	Any person employed under the authority of this Act as registrar, revising officer, deputy returning officer, poll clerk, messenger, interpreter or constable.
(c)	Any person, except the election clerk necessarily and properly employed by the returning officer for the conduct of the election.
(d)	Any person employed as clerk to a revising officer.
(e)	any person necessarily and properly employed by a registrar or revising officer in preparing copies of lists of voters authorized by this Act to be prepared.
<f) Any person necessarily employed by any election officer for his conveyance while travelling on duties relating to the election.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: >
This amendment might disqualify a man who was hired to drive a candidate. I might go into a district and hire a man to drive me in his automobile, which would be a proper thing to do, and that man would be disqualified.


Hugh Guthrie: No, the amendment is
to overcome -that objection. The chief objection to the clause as it appears in the Act is that there are so many necessary people in the work of an election that if the provisions of section 31 were to be enforced, it would be doubtful whether you could get the needed assistance.


Jacques Bureau: The amendment now
proposed reads:
Every person employed by any person for pay, etc.
If I hire a chaffeur to drive me around he would be disqualified under that amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: The Chief Electoral
Officer thought that the language in last year's section was too broad and he has submitted the clause I have just read. I do not think it goes as far as subsection (b) of last year's Act. Everyone who is lawfully doing election work should be entitled to vote, but would be disqualified as the Act no)v stands.


Jacques Bureau: It seems to me that if
I hired a man to put up a poster for me that man would be disqualified.

Mr. GUTHRIE r He would be under the law as it stands, and I understand that the amendment seeks to obviate that difficulty.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If a candidate retained the services of counsel to supervise the lists, that person would be disqualified.


Hugh Guthrie: The section as I have
read it has been the law for a long time and no one has ever taken advantage of it. That was section 68 in the old Act, and my attention was drawn to it by the Chief Electoral Officer. He mentioned that he would prepare a section more definite and more reasonable, and that is the section he sent me in a letter a couple of days ago.


Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the new clause carry?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Georges Henri Boivin: Shall the title carry?


Ernest Lapointe: There is a schedule
containing forms which we have passed without scrutinizing them very much and I wish, with the permission of the committee, to have a change made in form 20 which deals with the nomination papers. The law requires that the nomination paper shall be accompanied by a statement of a candidate giving his consent to the nomination, and then giving his address for the serving of any notice under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act or otherwise. Form 20 in the Act passed last year had this statement:
Nomination Paper etc.
I, the said	, nominated in the
foregoing nomination paper, herbey consent to such nomination, and name as my address for the serving of process and papers under this Act and under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act (here insert address).
Now that is omitted from this Bill. This is a statement which is very important. If the nomination paper is presented, without the candidate's consent and the giving of the address, the nomination paper will either be set aside or the election voided. This omission, therefore, may conduce to dangerous mistakes. I do not see why this statement contained in form 20 of last year's Act is not inserted in the new form.


Hugh Guthrie: 
Andrew Ross McMaster: Where should this
consent be?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that any form is necessary under the statute. The section of-the Act which applies is section 40 which requires the consent of the candidate:
No nomination paper shall be valid or acted upon by the returning officer unless It is accompanied by,-
(a) the consent in writing of the person therein nominated, except where such person is absent from the electoral district in which the election is to be held, when such absence shall toe stated in the nomination paper.
There is nothing in the Act to say there shall be a form.


Edmond Proulx: This form does not contain the consent?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Edmond Proulx: The form in the last
Act did contain the consent.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, that is the point
I raised with the Chief Electoral Officer and he said, as a matter of fact there should not be a consent in the form. He gave a very positive opinion about it.


Jacques Bureau: Why not?


Hugh Guthrie: The reason, I believe,
is that the Act does not require any particular form.


Ernest Lapointe: The law requires the
consent.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, it does, the consent in writing, but it does not say you can only do it in one form.


Ernest Lapointe: Why not do as I
suggest? Where is the harm?


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to
putting it in, but I like to be guided in these things by the man who has made a study of the Act and he expressly stated, "I deliberately left it out and it should not be in."


Ernest Lapointe: Of course the forms
sent out by the Chief Electoral Officer will contain such a statement, but people are not bound to use those forms; they may use forms prepared by themselves.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think the Chief Electoral Officer sends out any nomination papers, does he?


Ernest Lapointe: Then it is all the more necessary that the fonm which goes with the Act should contain this statement to prevent mistakes.


Jacques Bureau: The Act requires that no nomination paiper shall be valid unless it is accompanied by the consent in writing of the person nominated therein. In order to avoid confusion it might perhaps be better to leave out the form entirely, and let the candidate be guided by the section in the law.


Hugh Guthrie: That is just what I
say. That is the reason Colonel Biggar has not put in the form. He says it is not required by the Act and no particular form is necessary for that consent.
Mr. PROULX I submit that a man should send in his consent in the form required by the Act.


Hugh Guthrie: All it says is that the consent in writing must be obtained of the person nominated.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Then I understand
this consent does not have to appear on the nomination paper, it may be in a letter handed in to the returning officer?


Hugh Guthrie: The sections says the nomination paper has to be accompanied by " the consent in writing of the person therein nominated ". In practice I know the forms that have always been distributed by the various political parties I have had any thing to do with have always had endorsed on them " I hereby consent to the nomination ". The consent accompanies the nomination paper, that is all the Act requires.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would it not be well, in order to make for ease and correctness in procedure, to have the acceptance endorsed on the form of nomination?


Mr. THOMPSON (Qu'Apelle) :: The
minister has been good enough to suggest that he would consider forms in conjunction with the Chief Electoral Officer. So long as that is done before the Bill is finally passed I suppose these forms could be altered if the minister found it necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: If the Bill is through committee we can on the third reading get the Chief Electoral Officer up here. I do not 'like to make any change without his positive instructions. We went over the matter and he said that to have this form was improper. The reason he gave, if

I remember right, is that there must be a nomination in the form provided in section 40 of the Act. As I have already stated, paragraph 8 of section 40 provides that the nomination shall be accompanied by the consent in writing of the person nominated.


Andrew Ross McMaster: There might surely
be a form such as " I hereby accept this nomination " or words to that effect. That might be endorsed.


Hugh Guthrie: That might mislead
somebody. That person might not be present, but he would have the privilege of sending a letter. I do not think we should change the language of the Act.


Ernest Lapointe: It has always been the form. Why make the change when everybody seems to agree that there is danger in making the change?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that the Act was always in the same form as it is now.


Ernest Lapointe: I have great respect for the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, but the members of the House must have some rights. I think it is the general consensus of opinion that this form should be amended.


Hugh Guthrie: I move that you report the Bill, Mr. Chairman.


Ernest Lapointe: Is not that a reasonable suggestion? Really my hon. friend should accept that. We are not unreasonable in asking it.


Hugh Guthrie: I would have no hesitation in accepting it had not the point been specifically brought to my attention, and had I not specially applied for a ruling, which ruling was what I have given. It would look rather odd if in spite of that I should do what the Chief Electoral Officer says should not be done.


Jacques Bureau: But the opinion of hon. members should be regarded.


Hugh Guthrie: It is improper to put in a form where the statute does not say there shall be one. I am satisfied that on the strict language of the statute the Chief Electoral Officer is right. It might be a convenience to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend for Quebec East, but I hesitate very much after the positive opinion I received that it should not be done.


Jacques Bureau: That refusal ought to be based on some reason other than the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer. We

know that in the country they are guided by these forms. While I have, like my hon. friend from Quebec East, every respect for the opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer, surely members of the House are the judges in the last resort, and unless good reasons are shown I do not see why we should not add this form.


Hugh Guthrie: The reasons he gave me satisfied my judgment that his ruling is correct on the language of the statute. I am going to point this out to my hon. friend, and he knows it as well as I dp, that in practice these nomination papers come from the respective political parties all ready to be filled in; the Government does not supply these forms.


Jacques Bureau: Even so, the forms
should be copied from the statute.


Hugh Guthrie: When my hon. friend
is getting out the nomination form that statement is printed on it, but that does not deprive him of the liberty of putting in a letter too.


Ernest Lapointe: The returning officer
in every constituency has always had the form supplied to him, formerly by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and now by the Chief Electoral Officer. I happened to be present in Yamaska when the nominations were filled in, and I myself filled in the nomination paper of the candidate who was elected by 1,700 majority. That form was given to him by the returning officer, to whom it had been sent by the Chief Electoral Officer.


Hugh Guthrie: Had it the consent endorsed on it?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, the statement
was on that form.


Hugh Guthrie: Because it was in the
former Act, of course.


Edmond Proulx: If the Solicitor Gener >.l
has any objection to putting the consent on,
I would ask him to put a note on this form that this nomination paper must be accompanied by the consent in writing of the candidate.


Hugh Guthrie: That is in the statute.


Edmond Proulx: Sometimes the candidate does not look at the section but at the form.


Jacques Bureau: If we are going to make a form that is to be a kind of skeleton the same as in the Bill, why not put it all in or take it all out so it will not mislead anybody? If there is no form the section will be followed.


Georges Henri Boivin: I must point out
to the committee that this discussion on the forms has been carried on more or less by unanimous consent owing to the fact that they were hurriedly passed at the last meeting of the committee. But the forms were voted, and no amendment could now be legally proposed to them without the unanimous consent of the committee. In the absence of such consent, it would perhaps be better to put the motion which is now before the committee: shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported and amendments read the first and second time and concurred in.
On motion of Mr. Guthrie that the Bill be read the third time:
William Daum Euler: I move an amendment,
seconded by Mr. White:
That Bill No. 130 be not now read a third time, hut he referred hack to the Committee of the Whole House, with instructions to insert as Clause 22 the following:
That subsection 2 of Section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1920, be and is hereby stru-k from the Bill In its entirety.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: While the amendment
is quite in order, I suggest that it might better be worded "is hereby repealed" and if there is no objection I would put the motion in that form:
That subsection 2 of section 29 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1920, i>s hereby repealed.


Archibald Blake McCoig: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Francis N. McCrea: I was paired with the
hon. member for Algoma (Mr. -Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Jacques Bureau: I was paired with the
hon. Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.



Mr. KAY:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Toronto (Sir Edward Kemp.) Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Herbert John Mackie: I was
paired with the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Hunt). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion of the Acting Solicitor General.


Mr. ROBB:: I was paired with the hon.
member for North Grey (Mr. Middleton). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have
to take up the time of the House at this hour, but it will only be for a minute or two. This Act is in the nature of an experiment, and it is only through its being worked out at elections that we can see its merits and demerits. Section 3 of the Bill provides that judges of the respective judicial districts shall' be revising officers, and subsection (b) provides that judges may appoint substitutes to revise the lists, such substitutes, with respect to the lists, "to exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of such judge," I must say that this subsection may lead to grave abuses. There has been an election quite recently in the province from which I come. The judge happened to be sitting for the judicial' district in which the constituency was situated and he appointed a certain gentleman as revising officer. Now, I do not say anything against him. I know him very well; he was a colleague of mine in this House, and was a member of this Government after 1911. He was a candidate at the last elections, in 1917; he was the mover of the resolution which nominated one of the candidates at a convention of his party. He took an active part in the recent by-election, spoke at different meetings, and when not speaking disturbed order at the meetings. I say that this is a grave abuse and that judges and judges only should sit as revising officers and be the final judges of the lists to be used at an election. Surely such an abuse will not inspire any confidence on the part of the electors in this law. I thought I should call the attention of the Government to this section, and if it is still possible to repeal

subsection (b) and allow judges and judges only to revise the lists, that should be done.
Main motion (Mr. Guthrie) carried on division, and Bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 2.17 am Wed nesday.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 1, 1921.