I introduce the word ' power ' there so that it may be carried on through the different sections of the Act. Then I propose to repeal paragraph (b) of section 2 of the said Act and to substitute the following :-
Power means and includes mechanical or hydraulic power and electrical power or energy produced in Canada.
The only difference is that the words ' mechanical power ' are introduced in that section. Thep, section 3 provides for the export of power and fixes the conditions, and subsection 3, as it stands in the Act, reads:-
No person shall without a license construct or place in position any line of wire or other conductor for the exportation of power, or any pipe line or any like contrivance for the exportation of fluid.
It is proposed to amend that section in this way:-
No person shall without a license construct or place in position any line of wire, cable or other .means of transmitting power or any conductor for the exportation of power or electrical energy.
The difference between the two is that the word ' cable ' is introduced in the amendment, and for the reason that power can be transmitted otherwise than by electrical energy. I know a case where power has been transmitted by cable for mining purposes a distance of one mile and a quarter, and it is, therefore, necessary to provide that such a contingency shall fall under the regulations of this Bill the same as if it were transmitted by wire. Subsection 5 of the Bill deals with the question of supplying power in Canada, and it reads:-
Any . such license may provide that the quantity of power or fluid to be exported shall be limited to the surplus after the licensee has supplied for distribution to the consumer for use in Canada power or fluid to the extent defined by such license at prices and in accordance with the conditions, rules and regulations provided by the Governor in Council.
That is the section under which the difficulty to which I alluded a moment ago arises. The company in the case I speak of claim that the word ' power ' used in this section does not mean hydraulic, or mechanical power, but that it referred to electrical power, and no other. Now, in amending the section, the language I am suggesting is as follows, which I propose in substitution:-
Any such license shall provide that the quantity of power or fluid to be exported shall be limited to the surplus after the licensee has from time to time, as in this Act provided, supplied power or fluid, and has also provided all proper or necessary means of supplying such power or fluid for use by consumers in Canada to the extent defined by such license.
I think that amendment is very necessary, and I believe it will make the Bill much more workable, for the reason that the provision that power has to be supplied to Canadian consumers does not appear to go far enough. The Bill, as it stands, provides that prices may 'be regulated by the license, but in this it goes further and provides that the conditions and means by which the power shall be furnished shall be provided by the license. The power is no use to the Canadian consumer if he cannot get it. For instance, ir. the case to which I refer, where the power was locked up in the power house, and the door barred, and the Canadian consumer could not get it, it would not be of any value even if a price were fixed as he could iiot Use it, and tlhe purpose of the Act was defeated. The question of the means and methods of using as well as to distributing power is just as important as the question of the power itself. I think every one will agree that it must have been the intention in drafting this Act and providing that the power should be supplied, that reasonable means should be employed for supplying it. That being so, I think the Act should be more definite, and should stipulate with regard to these matters.