April 4, 1910

CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. D. REID.

One reason why I submit the Bill should not go through is that it is admitted that the gentlemen who are in this company are to purchase the power from the St. Lawrence Power Company and then they will sell it to the towns of Prescott and Brockville, the Railway Commission having the right to fix the rates at which the transmission company sell to these towns. But the commission cannot regulate the rates at which it shall be sold by the power company to the transmission company and the transmission company have a capital of $200,000. The line will not cost $25,000 and they will make the people pay a dividend on a lot of watered stock and a double profit. If the Minister of Railways and Canals is so anxious, as I believe he is, to get power to Brockville, it has been argued here that the St. Lawrence Power Company now have power to run a transmission line to Brockville. If he will say to this company; Run your transmission line to Brockville at once or otherwise I will cancel your contract, that line would be built. We are paying $52,000 a year to that company for 400 horse-power to open and shut the gates and are not using more than 45 horse-power. We pay $63 a horsepower, and when the government confirmed that contract in October, 1900, just before the elections, the company were selling power at Cornwall at $12.50 a horse-power. That contract for 400 horse-power is for 89 years. The present Minister of Justice, on the application of the Auditor General, gave an opinion saying possibly the making of this contract was a distinct infraction of section 11 of the Act respecting the Department of Railways and Canals, Revised Statutes of Canada, ch. 37, which says:

The minister shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of all works except in cases of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to tbe public interest or in which the nature of the work 't can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the minister.

The contract they have is illegal, and it was in 1900 that this government amended the old contract. The late minister, Mr. Blair, amended and extended it. If the Minister of Railways thinks that this Bill would do that then where we would have the advantage of getting cheaper power would be that the Railway Commission would deal with the St. Lawrence Power Company. Supposing this transmission company that is being formed, say: We have to pay the St. Lawrence Power Company $20 or $25 per horse-power, and we are only asking $2 to $3 per horse-power more; nobody could object to that. I cannot see where we are going to get any benefit from the clause in this Bill which says that the Railway Commission shall be referred to. Now, it has been admitted that this power is to come from the St. Lawrence Power Company. The men who are the incorporators of this transmission line company went to the Waterways Commission in Toronto and told them that they were getting this Bill passed, that they proposed to dam the St. Lawrence and they claimed that the damming of the St. Lawrence should be carried out in order that they might get this power. I appeal, in the interests of Brockville and Prescott, to the Minister of Railways, to make the St. Lawrence Power Company send that power up there. Then we will not have to deal with any middle company that we have no control over, and we can then insist that they shall give us a reasonable rate. I do not think that under the Railway Act we can get cheap power from the Railway Commission, but if they were not giving us a reasonable rate we could come to parliament and ask that the Bill be amended, so as to provide that the Board of Railway Commissioners could regulate the rate.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Robert Emmerson

Liberal

Mr. EMMERSON.

Under the Act of 1901, relating to the St. Lawrence Power Company, have they to submit their charges for power to the Railway Commission, or to anybody?

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. D. REID.

To no one at all. That is the point I raise. How are we going to get cheaper power under this transmission Bill? The St. Lawrence Power Company will say to those in this new company: We will put the price at $25 or $30 per horse-power, or whatever we like, and the only redress we have, if they are charging too much, is to ask the Railway Commissioners to regulate the price between this company and the other.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Henry Robert Emmerson

Liberal

Mr. EMMERSON.

Under this Act this company would have to submit their rates

for transmission to the Railway Commission, would they not?

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. D. REID.

This company will, but it is the first company that is the main one, and that is the lame feature of this Bill. If there was the slightest doubt about the association of this company with the St. Lawrence Power Company, which I do not think there is, there might be some reason for it. I submit that this matter is so important that it should be laid over to give us a chance to get these things right, and not try to push it through in this way.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

John Gillanders Turriff

Liberal

Mr. TURRIFF.

When I opposed this Bill before I did so because I could not understand why the St. Lawrence Power Company should come to parliament now and get a transmission line. There were very good grounds for being suspicious of the Bill because of the way in which it was introduced. The Bill certainly has been shorn of some of the powers that they asked for when they came before this House. But, I am not at all clear in my own mind up to the present whether there is not still, if J may use the expression, a nigger in the fence. The amendment proposed by the gentleman who promotes this Bill (Mr. Pardee), the statement made by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) go a long way towards cutting out anything that may be wrong in the Bill, but at the same time what puzzles me is why, with the powers that they have under the Bill of 1901, if it is only a transmission line they want, they come before the House to-day with this Bill even in its present shape. The only point I can see wherein this Bill gives them some advantage that they do not possess under the old Bill is with respect do the right to acquire electrical energy. It seems to me that their object could be accomplished by amending the Bill of 1901 to enable them not only to generate electricity, but to acquire it from other private power companies existing in different parts of the country. They have thg right to transmit under their original Bill. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it has been a good thing that all this opposition has been raised. I think it was a first rate thing that we had an all-night session over this Bill. It has done one thing. It has aroused the people of Canada to the importance of the legislation that was passed by this House in 1901. I did not happen to be a member at that time. If I had been a member I would not have known any more of what that Bill meant than most of those who were in the House at that time.

Mr. PU6SLEY. Was it passed late at night?

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB
LIB

John Gillanders Turriff

Liberal

Mr. TURRIFF.

No, but the Bill was like a great many Bills that go through this House almost every day; the average member of the House knows mighty little about . the real meaning of them. Had the members of this House, and the people of Canada realized what was being done by the Act of 1901 there would have been a howl from one end of the Dominion to the other. But, fortunately for us that Act is not all sufficient. Fortunately for the people of Canada, and this House the owners of that franchise have to come back and get their plans approved by the Minister of Public Works before they can go on and dani the River St. Lawrence. That has been our safeguard. I think that the thorough discussion-I will not say thorough discussion, because I do not know yet whether it has been thorough or not-but the long discussion that we have had over the matter has awakened us to what might easily and innocently have been done by any minister of the Crown in approving plans without realizing exactly what they mean. The waterpower at the Long Sault dam is a heritage for the people of Canada. It is not our heritage at the present moment, but it may be a heritage for our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren. We do not want that power at the present time in Canada. For every horse-power that can be used within a reasonable distance of the Long Sault rapids there are to-day fifty horse-power that can be developed without going to the St. Lawrence river, which is an international stream.

Another thing we want to be very careful about is accepting engineers' Teports. Take the case of the water-power at Fort Frances, the facts regarding which have been made public. In that case the engineer was a man named Fanning, of whom I have heard for the last 15 years as the very first authority on hydraulic engineering in America. When Mackenzie and Mann established their large electrical power 60 or 70 miles east of Winnipeg on the Winnipeg river, they got this man to report to them before they took action. Now, what did Mr. Fanning do in this case? The promoter of the company, Mr. Backus, and the president of the company, went to the Ontario government with a report from this engineer that only 9,000 horse-power could 'be developed at Fort Frances, and they got the government to agree to the scheme on condition that 4,000 horse-power should be delivered on the Canadian side and the balance on the American side. But within a few months that same engineer gave a report that from 36,000 to 38,000 horse-power could be developed at Fort Frances, and the result was that 4,000 horse-power was to be used at Fort Frances and the balance of 34,000 horse-power on the American side. That shows how care-

ful we ought to be about engineers' reports before giving away franchises which we have no right to give away. I was delighted to hear the words of the Prime Minister to-night, and I agree with him that we should not at the present time give oyer this St. Lawrence power to a Canadian company, let alone to an American company, at any price they might pay to the state of New York for that privilege of damming the St. Lawrence on the American side. I can tell you, Sir, that their object is not, as they have stated to this House, to build up towns on the American and Canadian side of the rapids in the St. Lawrence. I happen to know that four or five months ago engineers came from New York to Ottawa to see what arrangements could be made for the securing of power in this vicinity, because they were not absolutely certain whether this thing would go through or not, and these engineers made the statement that the power could be transmitted from the Long Sault to the state of New York commercially. When you remember that from 600,000 to 800,000 horse-power can be developed there, look at what it would mean to them if they could export that, power to New York city. Does any one believe for a moment that if that dam were built and if from 300,000 to 600,000 horse-power were developed now, and we could not use it (as we could not at the present time) that that power would not be sent to the United States. And does any one believe for a moment that if that power were sent into the United States we would ever get it back. At Niagara, in proportion to the water on each side of the boundary, the Americans get double as much power as they are entitled to. For ten years the town of Fort Frances has been engaged in lawsuits with this American company which owns the franchise. One of the chief promoters of the St. Lawrence power stated in the city of Montreal that they had to have it and they were going to have it, and that when the power was developed they would give the Canadians 90 days in which to take the power, and if they did not take it then it would be sold in the United States. Well, I think he spoke a little too soon; I believe the people of Canada realize or are beginning to realize something of the value of that power and of their rights in the matter, and that they will not think of allowing any company, Canadian or American, more especially a foreign company, to dam the St. Lawrence right at the point where it becomes a Canadian river altogether. The St. Lawrence is one of the greatest rivers on the earth; it is a canal extending 1,000 miles right into the heart of the country, and if we allow that river to be dammed we do not know what we may be doing to impede navigation. One of the

best engineers in Canada told me that no man could tell at the present time what the effect of such a dam would be. He told me that some 50 years ago there was a small dam 12 feet high on the Mississippi near Almonte, and an ice jam raised the water 40 feet, with the result that the dam went out and every dam and every mill between that and the Ottawa river was swept away. If the same thing should occur on the river St. Lawrence the result might be appalling. But leaving all that aside it is too big a matter to allow any American company to control. I am no believer in government ownership in most cases, but this is a case where we have an international river where complications are apt to arise, and if the time ever comes- the time has not come yet and it will not come for a good while-when the waterpower on that river should be developed in the interests of Canada it ought to be a matter for the Dominion and American governments to engage in themselves and not transfer the doing of it to any company of American speculators. There has been a great deal of time spent in discussing this Bill, but the time has been well spent, and not a minute of it has been wasted. I think now that the government will realize how inadvisable it would be for them in the near future to approve of plans for damming the St. Lawrence. After what I have heard in discussing this matter with prominent men, I believe that no government would last a month that would allow the great St. Lawrence river to be dammed and controlled by an American company of speculators.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HUGHES.

I have to congratulate the government, on its splendid attendance to-night. The Minister of Customs is absent, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is unfortunately absent, but every other Minister of the Crown is in his place to-night, I presume in the interest of this Bill. This shows the result of the opposition which was engendered against this Bill in the Private Bills Committee led by the members from Grenville and Dundas, and the member for North Ontario.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

And the member for Victoria.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HUGHES.

I have not the honour of being a member of the Private Bills Committee, or otherwise I certainly would be in the swim.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. D. REID.

I was not a member of that committee either, and they tried to shut me off, but they could not do it.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HUGHES.

The Prime Minister is

just commencing to realize the importance of this Bill, and I am satisfied that if he postponed it for a week he would get more

62G3

light on it. Will the First Minister consent to that?

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Is the hon. gentleman not disposed to accept the amendment of the leader of the opposition?

satisfied that the members of the opposition who fought this measure when it was last before this House are deserving of the thanks of the country for the work they did at that time. This article is headed, ' Deceiving the Public,' and says:

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

John Dowsley Reid

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. D. REID.

Oh, there aTe other amendments.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HUGHES.

It was admitted by the Minister of Public Works on the 14th of March, that the St. Lawrence Power Company and the St. Lawrence Transmission Company, are one and the same. The two of them are owned and controlled by the Long Sault Construction Company. I believe that if we pass this innocent looking Transmission Bill we will be passing a very dangerous measure to the welfare of Canada. This company has not the power to expropriate under the Bill of 1901, and that is what they want now, and that would make them masters of the situation. The danger of damming the St. Lawrence cannot be overestimated. I saw some gentlemen on the government side, who are more accustomed to windmills than to waterpower machines, smiling when the hon. member for Assinaboia spoke of the danger that the damming of the St. Lawrence would cause by the jamming of ice. Ice jams on the St. Lawrence have sometimes risen forty or fifty feet, and have cut off trees two feet thick, and when the jam has broken a great deal of damage has been done. We must consider the nature of the country. The Ottawa and New York railway bridge has gone down twice owing to defective foundations. There are veins of quicksand in the river. Only last fall the bridge just above Cornwall tumbled down. The proposed dam would , be about four miles above Cornwall. The lowest estimate of its height is from forty-seven to forty-eight feet, and the general opinion is that it is proposed to make it fifty-six feet high Let it extend from Barnard's island to the Long Sault island, and there is no telling what injury would result. Even if there should be no ice jam, the top of the dam would be nine feet higher than the Cornwall station, over forty feet higher than the city of Cornwall, and fifty feet higher than the- banks of the river at Cornwall. Then, in case an ice jam occurred, and the ice piled up thirty or forty feet, the valley of the river would be flooded, causing a great deal of damage. If the dam should break, as other dams have done, it is impossible to tell what extent of damage would be the result. I wish to refer to an article which I find in the Brockville Evening * Recorder,' of March 24. I do not know what the object of the Minister of Railways and Canals was in publishing this article in his paper unless it was to draw a red herring over the trail. I am' Mr. HUGHES.

AVliether the object is to deceive the public or not, the result of the objection made to allowing Brockville to be reached by a transmission line apparently has had that effect.

Undoubtedly the object of the editor of this paper is to deceivfe the people of Brockville as to the real issue. The article goes on:

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
?

Why R. L.@

Borden, leader of the opposition at Ottawa, and practically every man behind him, should join in the clamour to deprive this section of Ontario, and particularly Brockville, of the first opportunity it has had of getting cheap power is something no one can understand. Personally, Mr. Borden knows absolutely nothing of the situation, and has not apparently taken any pains to inform himself as to what the conditions are, for if he really knew, one cannot think he would have taken the position he did in trying even to keep Brockville from getting a transmission line.

Compare that paragraph with the statement made by the First Minister to-night that the opposition were justified and have done the country a good service in pointing out the iniquity of this power company Act of 1901, and the iniquity of this Bill as presented in its early stages. Who was preventing Brockville from getting electrical power? Nearer to Brockville than the Long Sault rapids are magnificent water-powers available for less money than this company will sell power to Brockville foT. All the water-powers around Ottawas are nearer to Brockville than the Long Sault rapids, a fact of which the editor of this paper is perhaps not aware: and we have the evidence presented to-night by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) that the companies along the St. Lawrence river have again and again offered Brockville and Prescott a thousand hoTse-power of water-power which they were seeking. This article goes on to say:

No one is surprised at Hon. Adam Beck using his influence in preventing any municipality in Ontario getting power except through the Hydro-Electric, as he has a direct personal interest in keeping all and sundry beneath his thumb and within his jurisdiction.

I am not here to defend the HydroElectric Power Commission of the province of Ontario; but I want to say that if that commission were seeking the authority that the St. Lawrence Power Company and the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company are seeking, I would oppose it as determinedly as I am doing here. We want to preserve the St. Lawrence river free to

the navigation of the world. Further on this article says:

The damming of the St. Lawrence is a very large project, and one of not only national but international importance, and the discussion of it should be approached with the utmost seriousness, but the granting of a charter for a transmission line is altogether a different proposition, and the attempt to hold it. up for fear it was giving some rights to dam the St. Lawrence is altogether unwarranted.

Yet we have the hon. member for West Lambton, the father or god-father of this Bill, and the First Minister presenting an amendment to the Bill, which practically admits that the two companies are. one and are working hand in hand. The First Minister has admitted that the St. Lawrence Power Company had authority to dam the St. Lawrence river provided they got an order in council, and by the amendment of that Bill, the hon. member for West Lambton admits that the two Bills are one and the same.

The big project of harnessing the Soo will no doubt be discussed in due time and in the proper place when parliament, as promised by Sir Wilfrid, will have full opportunity of dealing with it.

That is in the atmosphere, is it, that the St.. Lawrence river is to be dammed? That is one of the future considerations that is evidently up the sleeve of certain hon. gentlemen on the other side. The Minister of Railways and Canals frankly tells us that that is the project. I presume a marked copy of this paper was sent to the Long Sault Construction Company, to assure them that if they are thrown down on the. present occasion, they will have to make a few concessions, owing to this iniquitous opposition in the House of Commons. Why, all you have to do, gentlemen, is to trust us in the future, this is only the beginning of justice, and we will see that you get your rewards if you just keep quiet and wait a little while longer.

What the people of this vicinity want just uow is a transmission line over which they can get power from some source.

Why this sudden interest in the transmission line? When did we ever hear the Minister of Railways and Canals becoming interested in transmission lines until the St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company came along? Why did not the men of Brockville harness the Chats rapids, or some of those Ottawa powers, and have a transmission line run to Brockville? Ha shows a very unique interest in this St. Lawrence Power Transmission Company s Bill.

There is a power development at Iroquois under Dominion control; there is power to be developed at Waddington, N.Y., which has for many years been on the tapis. There is also power at Massena. But the attitude of the opposition at Ottawa, and of Mr. Beck at Toronto, is that we must not he allowed to have a line over which we could use it in case power can he got from any of these.

I stand here to state that that is not the attitude of the opposition at Ottawa. Our attitude is that any proper transmission scheme that is presented to this House will have the entire support of every member of the opposition. But when a scheme come along that is admitted by the Minister of Public Works, admitted by the First Minister, and admitted by 'the promoter of the Bill in his amendment, to be hand and glove with the Bill to dam the_ St. Lawrence, when a scheme like that is brought into this House, then it is the duty of every member of the opposition, and of every honest man on the government side, to oppose it.

In addition there is some surplus power to he developed at the present works at Cornwall that might be obtained.

How cleverly the attempt is made to conceal the real object of the Bill! They are telling the people of Brockville: 'Here we are at Ottawa, sitting up nights, five ministers of the Crown sitting up to daylight, pushing through a private Bill in order to give the poor people of Brockville some electric power, and the terrible opposition, led by this terrible man, Mr. Borden, are trying to prevent the people of Brockville from getting what they want.' They pretend that they can get power from Iroquois, when the whole cunningly devised scheme is to give to this St. Lawrence Power Company "the one great privilege they seek, namely, power to expropriate property for their transmission line, and once they get that, they can go wherever they choose. And here let me point out to the hon. member for West Lambton, what his statement says:

Yor shall the company hereby incorporated he authorized to transmit power generated by the St. Lawrence Power Company other than the power generated by and in connection with the works already constructed by the said St. Lawrence Power Company.

But there is no provision to prevent them transmitting power generated by the Long Sault Construction Company, and that is the company which owns all these works. So that even if the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton were carried, I maintain that this company could still go on, unless it were harnessed up by the amendment of the leader of the opposition, in other words, unless we practically amended the Act of 1901 by forbidding that a dam should ever be constructed without another Bill passing through parliament for that purpose. True, the amendment- is innocently worded, but there has been so i much clever, technical and legal Scheming 1 and quibbling in connection with this mat-

ter, that we axe justified in looking_ at it from every point of view, and I maintain that if this amendment goes through, while extra electricity from the St. Lawrence Power Co. might not be passed over this transmission company's line, there is not a word in that Act to prevent power from the Long Sault Construction Company being passed over that line. Therefore, unless the amendment proposed by the leader of the opposition should be put into shape so as practically to cancel the power given in 1901 to dam the St. Lawrence, there is nothing to prevent the whole iniquity still being carried out to the letter. Therefore, I would again urge on the First- Minister the advisability of letting this thing stand over for a week, until we can look into it and get to the bottom of the matter, now that both sides of the House and the country are thoroughly aroused to the tremendous steal that is attempted to be perpetrated here in the name of development along the St. Lawrence river. Then this article goes on to say:

But Mr. Borden and Mr. Beck say 'No, wo must have no transmission line to get power from any of these, for fear in the future the granting of this charter might have some influence on the proposition to dam the St. Lawrence.' It is all very well for Mr. Beck (who is using the whole financial backing of Ontario, to give the people in Toronto and west power) to he quite contented with himself, hut his attitude is grossly unfair to the people of the eastern part of Ontario. He nas never made any serious effort to giv* them power; he has no power to give them. If lie did (and he is too busy anyway, attending to western Ontario) he has asked nothing in the estimates this year to provide power in the east, and his talk just now is merely a bluff, as it was before, in order to keep everybody else out of this territory until such times as it pleases him to come down this way. In the meantime Brockville -and her sister towns are losing the opportunity of getting industries that might come this way if we could get the power, and they are also having a hard time holding the industries they have.

All that under the administration of the First Minister, and of the Minister of Railways and Canals. Where are these industries going if they are now having -a hard time? That is a new aspect in which to regard too rosy ia picture of the success of these towns that was painted for >us.

Granting a charter to the transmission line as asked for does not give anybody any further power than they now enjoy.

Well, that is contradicted b,y the First Minister himself^ and by the proposed amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton, as well as by arguments put up on this side of the House.

It does not extend the rights of anybody, but it merely gives the people of this part of Ontario a chance of going about hunting for power in a practical way. If this line is con-

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
L-C

Samuel Hughes

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HUGHES.

structed we will be able to say to anybody who has power, ' Sell us power, and there is a company who has the right to transmit it.' If the power cannot he obtained that will be the misfortune of Brockville and other towns; but if it can be obtained, why should the people he deprived of that which could be of such benefit to them, merely on account of selfishness or other reasons not obvious to the ordinary individual.

We find, not only in this paper, but in other papers, and on the part of other persons, an attempt made to blind the public to the real issues in the case. We might as well come down to the fact that the St. Lawrence Power Company's Bill was smuggled through this parliament-schemed through. Some person behind it knew all about it. Of course, every member of par liament who was here at that time, is indirectly responsible. But somebody was behind the scheme. I exonerate the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) because he was not then a member of this House But though the scheme was smuggled through, it was inoperative to a certain extent, because the company had not power-of expropriation. Under this Bill, as it was introduced, tremendous powers were to be given to these parties. And, in spite of all the amendments, the Bill is evidently dangerous, and opportunity should be given for the elimination of the danger. We require time to consider this and to get the best legal talent of this country to consider it. The Prime Minister may or may not be aware that some gentlemen eminent at the bar of the province of Quebec, have considered this Bill. It was an eminent lawyer of Montreal, I believe, who first pointed out that under the Act of 1901, the company had power to dam the St. Lawrence. The Minister of Public Works endeavoured to conceal that the other evening, but the Prime Minister came out frankly and declared that the company had this power. Now, we have made progress with this Bill. The First Minister will admit that we have made progress by allowing this Bill to stand over after fighting it a whole day. Let me suggest to the Prime Minister that he will make progress by holding it over for another week. Let us look into the matter.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Andrew Broder

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRODER.

I think this is a question that ought to be thoroughly looked into before any definite action is taken. I was glad to hear the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) make the statements he did with regard to his opinion and his probable action as to any future attempt to dam the St. Lawrence river. A good deal was said about the great necessity of bringing power to the town of Brockville. I know of my own knowledge, that the people of the town of Brockville, have been approached within the last twelve months with a very reasonable proposition for the

supply of power and they were not, apparently, very anxious to afford a market to this power developed at the town of Iroquois. Mr. Beach, of Iroquois, has developed on the canal there, under lease from the federal government, 500 horse-power, and has foundations in for three more units which would make a full development of 2,000 horse-power. That is available to Brockville, and the point at which it is developed is 33 miles nearer to Broek-ville than the proposed electrical power at Cornwall, and which they are so anxious to get. In other words, it would require a transmission line of only 26 miles to deliver this power in Brockville, and that could be built for about $16,000. I know that Mr. Beach offered power within the last two months,

I do not say to Brockville at $16 per horse-power for 24 hours. That is pretty cheap power. It will be equal to $8 for 12-hour horse-power.

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

Frederick Forsyth Pardee (Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. PARDEE.

What would it cost in Brockville?

Topic:   ST. LAWRENCE POWER TRANSMISSION COMPANY.
Permalink

April 4, 1910