March 7, 1927

LIB

Joseph-Arthur Bradette

Liberal

Mr. BRADETTE:

Are you aware that the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission is not functioning in northern Ontario, and that ninety per cent of the water-power in that section of the province has been sold to private interests, including those on the Abitibi and Kapuskasing rivers?

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Thomas Herbert Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX:

That is a little too far

north for me.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-Arthur Bradette

Liberal

Mr. BRADETTE:

But it is part of the

province of Ontario.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Thomas Herbert Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX:

I am speaking of the

horse-power that is being developed under the Hydro Electric Commission.

Now let me refer to another phase of this question, and this has to deal with the question that was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). My hon. friend asked what the penalty is for failure to build a canal. We know from the lips of Mr. Harry Sifton that the revenues from the development will not be sufficient, and we know that there will be very large revenues derived from the sale of power from these waterfalls. What will the government do? We will assume that in 1936 the company has expended $50,000, if you like, on the construction of the canal, and that during

Georgian Bay Canal Company

those nine years they have developed many of the waterfalls along the Ottawa river, the Carillon and many others-there are nine or ten of them. Assume that they do that and they can do it. Of that there can be no denial. They develop the water-powers and they spend $50,000, we will say, upon the construction of the canal which of course under certain conditions is returned to them. Now what can the government do in case of failure by the company to carry out its obligations? We find that in 1936 a large development has taken place in connection with the water-powers. We find that $50,000 perhaps, has been expended upon the canal, but there has been no construction work over and above that. What does the government do? What power has it under the provisions of this bill? All the power it has is to cancel the right of the company to go with the construction of the canal. That is the only power that is left. The government cannot interfere with the water-powers, there is no provision for that in the bill, but it can say to them in 1936: Here, Mr. Sifton, you have had nine

years to construct this canal. It is true you have expended money in the development of water-powers, which are a source of revenue to you, but you have done nothing towards building the canal and therefore we will not let you do anything further in that direction. What a horrible punishment that will be! Really I would not like to be the one who would'have to tell the company in 1936 that that would occur. It is a shame to think that in 1936, presupposing there has been no expenditure and no construction work done on the canal, that these gentlemen are going to be punished to the extent that the government will say to them: Put that surplus money in your pockets. You have not built the canal. You must keep that money and pay dividends on it. It is yours. We will not let you spend it. We are going to determine or cancel your rights under this agreement. That is the position; it makes no difference what any person says to the contrary, that is the interpretation of this bill and what that is, in my opinion, will result in 1936.

Let me ask this question: Supposing that this bill, instead of being passed as it is and has been for the last thirty-three years, were coming into this House for the first time and that this company was asking for the right to develop the water-powers of this country without the payment of a single dollar? Would anybody support it? Is there an hon. gentleman within the walls of this chamber that would give his support to a bill the whole aim and object of which was the development of power? Yet that is exactly

what may and will happen if this bill becomes law. This is a private company; they are not particularly solicitous-and no one will blame them for that-for the welfare of the people of this Dominion. Like that of every other private corporation or company their whole aim and object is to make money out of this scheme. That being the case, does anyone for a moment suppose that the gentlemen who form this company are going to take the profits derived from the sale of the power which they develop and put them into the construction of a canal? They would be crazy to do such a thing when the only penality is the removal of the octopus that they will be so glad to get rid of.

I just want again to impress upon hon. gentlemen that there is no escape from that in connection with this bill. No excuse can be offered by hon. gentleman for supporting this bill in view of the fact that it has the same effect as if the bill itself asked us to give them all the water-powers along the Ottawa river, allow them nine years to develop those water-powers and not ask them for a single copper. That is a serious matter. It is bad enough to give this to them if there is any legal obligation upon them to construct the canal, but it is absolutely indefensible to hand over to any private corporation or company an asset, a franchise, the value of which cannot be estimated. Are we discharging our duty as trustees of the people of this Dominion, realizing as we must, knowing as we do, that the moment this bill becomes law there is no machinery in the world, there is no provision in or outside of the bill, to compel the construction of that canal?

Why then should we give to this corporation this valuable asset? What reason is urged by the'company that we should do so? What inducement do they offer to us to hand over to them these water-powers of such fabulous value? It is true they say that they will build the canal, but they have said that for thirty-three years, and those of us who know these gentlemen know that they are not in this scheme for the good of their health or for the financial welfare of the people of this Dominion. Therefore I repeat that every hon. gentleman who gives his support to this bill gives to this company the right, without a single copper of cost, without any restriction, to develop the water-powers, and at the same time he relieves them of the construction of the canal. All the company has to do is to take advantage of its own wrong, its own delay, its own failure to carry out the terms of this agree-

Georgian Bay Canal Company

ment in order to be relieved of the construction of the canal. Surely no company, no man, should be allowed to benefit or to receive financial advantage by reason of failure to do what it was its or his duty to do.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
LAB

Herbert Bealey Adshead

Labour

Mr. ADSHEAD:

Do I understand the hon. member's remark to mean that if they fail to construct the canal, they will still be in possession of the water-powers?

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Thomas Herbert Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX:

Absolutely. That cannot

be denied.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

Still, the hon.

gentleman must admit that after his enlightening speech no committee of the House of Commons would allow the bill to come out from that committee without proper provisions, without a proper safeguard.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Thomas Herbert Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX:

I do not know. It has

gone through thirteen times and I prefer not to take any chances myself. I do not know what the hon. gentleman would do. In view, however, of what the hon. member has said, that is exactly what they are asking for. Under Bill No. 78 they have asked us to give them exactly the same powers, the same privileges, the same rights, without any change, alteration or restriction that they have received since 1894 in the different extensions.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Robert James Manion

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MANION:

Except that the period is

nine years instead of eight.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Thomas Herbert Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX:

Yes. It will probably take an extra year to develop these water-powers. I just want to say to my hon. friend that I have not heard of there being any suggestion of any change. The company ana asking that Bill 78 be passed extending the time, but I sincerely hope that if in a moment of weakness we should allow this bill to receive its second reading, my hon. friend will attend the railway committee, of which I unfortunately am not a member, and see that we are amply protected.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

John Gordon Ross

Liberal

Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):

I will guarantee

that. I am a member.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Thomas Herbert Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX:

I am very glad that my

hon. friend has so much influence with the party to which he is affiliated.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

The hon. member said this bill went before the committee thirteen times. Was it not passed in the House without going to the railway committee?

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Thomas Herbert Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX:

Perhaps I made a mistake. I apologize. If it went before the committee thirteen times, I would not object, but it was before the House thirteen times. The House extended the charter without even sending it to the committee.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

The hon. member said it went before the committee thirteen times.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Thomas Herbert Lennox

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LENNOX:

I apologize. I should have said it went before the House, and the House extended it without sending it to the committee.

I hope the House will bear with me while I deal with another phase of this bill-probably the most obnoxious and indefensible part of it. I refer to the fact that it overrides the acknowledged rights of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. Since 1S94, when the original bill was introduced, the rights of the Dominion and of the provinces have been well defined with respect to the powers in connection with navigable streams. It is well known that the Dominion has paramount rights with respect to navigation, and I think it is equally well known, or at least it ought to be, that subject to the right of the Dominion with respect to navigation the provinces have absolute control over the water-powers of the navigable streams in this country. About a year ago the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) admitted that in a debate in this House when he stated that the Dominion government had no right to interfere with the provincial governments with respect to the water-powers of the streams and rivers in this country. If the minister was correct in that statement-and I quite agree with him-then, what are we doing, and what are we facing? It is true that if this bill be adopted it carries with it all the water-powers that are in the gift, or are supposed to be in the gift, of the Dominion government. But if the Dominion government has no control over the water-powers of these rivers, then so far as that section of the bill is concerned the act is ultra vires.

If we accept the statement of the Minister of the Interior, who was speaking as a minister of the crown and I assume on behalf of the government, and supposing it to be true that the Dominion has no right so to interfere, what is there to be gained by adopting this bill? What will it mean? We have heard the statement made by the Premier of Ontario that he will never consent to the Dominion government interfering with the waterfalls of the rivers in this province. He has given warning in the last four or five days that if this bill should by any chance become law the Ontario government, assisted by the government of the province of Quebec, will take whatever means they may deem necessary in order to have their rights declared. If that be so, what object is to be gained in passing a bill which will entail prolonged litigation, extending prob-

970 COMMONS

Georgian Bay Canal Company

ably over years and years, during which time the waterfalls in the Ottawa river will be tied up and the people of eastern Canada made to suffer to that extent?

The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) referred to the National hydro. As I said at that time, I have no interest in the National hydro, and nothing will please me more than to see whatever rights they have rescinded. But I want to draw attention of hon. members to this fact: In 1894 this charter was granted. As far back as 1911 the government of the day leased to the National hydro a quantity of power for which they were to pay $2 per horse-power. The lease was to extend over a period of sixty-three years, and as has been stated in this House, that lease was renewed in 1921. I draw the attention of the House to that original lease for this purpose: if the government of the day thought for one moment that under this charter the Georgian Bay Canal Company had control and were possessed of the water-power, they never would have granted this lease. Bear in mind that no matter who develop the power- even the hydro commission-before they can do anything they must have a lease or agreement with the Dominion government preserving its rights. I say they could not have considered that clause in the charter with respect to power as of any value, or if they did, the conclusion that we are driven to is that the government of the day fifteen or sixteen years ago had no confidence in the sincerity and the ability of this company to carry out their obligations under their charter. It is a singular thing that if the government for one moment contemplated the rights that are being asserted by this company, and that are being supported,

I regret to say, by certain hon. members in this House, then it is unbelievable that they would issue another lease to another company to allow them to develop the Carillon falls.

In conclusion, I desire to read to the House a part of an interview by my friend Mr. Harry Sifton. Before doing so I wish to state that in my experience as a public man, which has extended over a considerable period, I have never known the press of this country to be so unanimously opposed to a bill as they are to this measure. So far as Ontario is concerned, to my knowledge there is not, except perhaps in the extreme north, a single newspaper published in any village, town or city throughout the province that is not utterly opposed to parliament passing this bill. No matter what the merits or demerits of a measure may be, it is not often that we find such unanimity amongst both Liberals and Conservatives editing the newspapers of the province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to read a few extracts from an interview which my friend, Harry Sifton, gave the Daily Star on January 10th:

Harry Sifton in these words explains the present standing of matters along the Ottawa in an interview over the week-end.

Mr. Sifton said that the National HydroElectric Company of Montreal is striving to render ineffective the charter of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.

On behalf of the canal company he replied to a special despatch from Ottawa published Saturday morning. Mr. Sifton stated that there is a group

Now, I ask hon. members to listen to this.

Mr. Sifton stated that there is a group of capitalists who have sought to control the government of Canada for the purpose of running Canada to suit themselves and, "having failed in political intrigues it appears that what they want now is not the right to govern Canada fairly but the right to exploit it."

That is a reference to the National Hydro Electric Company, which has interests only in a waterfall that will generate a little over two hundred thousand horse-power. In Mr. Harry Sifton's view that company is exploiting the people of this country by seeking to develop power at the Carillon falls; but the Georgian Bay Company, owned by capitalists controlling. as they hope, not only the Carillon falls but every other water-power on the Ottawa river, are not exploiting, they are looking after the interests of the people of Canada! Let me read further:

Mr. Sifton thinks that a speedy investigation in the interests of the people is urgently needed.

I think so too, and we are here for that very purpose, to protect the people of this Dominion from such exploitation. The interview continues:

The situation on the Ottawa river is simply this. The Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company is a company chartered by the government to construct a waterway from Montreal to the Georgian bay. Its charter is of very long standing and has been frequently renewed by various parliaments. The rights are therefore absolute and cannot be altered except by an Act of parliament. . . .

The National Hydro-Electric Company holds a lease from the federal government of the water-powers at the Carillon section of the Ottawa river, but this lease was granted subsequently to the chartering of the canal company, and is in my opinion valueless as long as the canal charter is in existence.

May I ask bon. gentlemen to follow me while I. read the next interesting part of this interview:

Some years ago Ontario was threatened by a power monopoly in the hands of short-sighted capitalists. She very wisely grappled with the question and set up the Hydro Electric Com-

Georgian Bay Canal Company

mission to develop and sell electric power at cost to the people. The duty of the Hydro Electric Commission is to fight exploitation by narrow-minded and selfish private interests, who give nothing in return for the gift of public property which they acquire through the payment of trifling fees.

Here we have out of the lips of the gentleman who is vitally interested in the -passage of this bill a statement to the effect that the Hydro Electric Commission was only doing its duty in grappling with these private interests, and that by reason of the action of that commission in defending the rights of the people these capitalists did not get hold of the public domain, and as a result the people of Ontario were getting their power at -cost.

Now, I wonder whether there is any dissimilarity between the condition at that time and the condition to-day. Here we have a private corporation, a body of capitalists banded together for the purpose of taking from the people their water-powers. The very same thing, my friend says, occurred some years ago, and then it was incumbent on the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission in order to defend the rights of the people to take control and generate electric power. That is exactly what I am asking for to-night. I am asking that these two bills, both of which in my opinion are indefensible, both of which are ultra vires of the powers vested in the parliament of Canada, be rejected. In a word, I am asking you to-night to do what my friend Mr. Sifton says was done, and was necessary to be done, in order to prevent the exploitation of these water-powers by private capitalists. I am asking the house to do what he says is the . proper thing to do-cancel both these alleged agreements or charters, and thus permit the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission, associated as it will be with the government of Quebec in dealing with these inter-provincial waters, to develop this water-power so that the people of the eastern part of Ontario may be put upon an equal footing with those in the middle and western portions by acquiring their power at cost.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Joseph-√Čloi Fontaine

Liberal

Mr. J. E. FONTAINE (Hull) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, I understand that in

the near future amendments are to be moved in connection with the rules of the House. I hope that the first one will be to limit to twenty minutes the length of members' speeches, so that in future we shall not be forced to listen to speeches as protracted- although eloquent-as the one which has just been delivered by the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox).

The question of the Georgian bay canal is of such import to the people of the riding which I have the honour to represent that I would fail in my duty if I did not rise to state openly that I approve entirely of the bill which is under consideration by the House. I do not clearly understand the attitude of a great number of members, and particularly that of the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley) who is directing the opposition to the Georgian bay canal bill.

As you have heard it mentioned, Sir, by a number of members, it is now thirty-two years since this charter was granted. It was in 1894. Thirteen times, or thereabouts- every second year, I think, the members of the Georgian Bay Canal Company have come before parliament in order to have their charter renewed. Each time it was done without practically any opposition, therefore. I fail to understand why the request of this company raises so much opposition on the fourteenth time. I presume that quite a number of those who are opposed to the renewal of this . charter, would prefer that concessions be granted to private companies for the development of the water-powers on the St. Lawrence. It seems to me, Sir, that it is better to help this company, which beside developing the water-powers, as any other private concern would do, will give us a canal that will shorten the route between Montreal and Fort William by many hundred miles. This would mean a reduction in freight rates and allow Nova Scotia to ship its coal at more favourable conditions. It would also benefit the western provinces in the shipping of their wheat. On that score it is but natural that we should give preference to the Georgian Bay Canal Company, which will perhaps spend hundreds of millions in the dredging of this canal and thereby bring prosperity to the workmen of this country. I believe that it is better to favour this company than to grant a franchise to a private enterprise who would only develop the water-powers.

It is pointed out that the provinces have rights over the water-powers of the St. Lawrence. I understand that in the present bill there exists a clause which stipulates that the provinces may exact that their rights be protected, preventing thereby all encroachments by any company. For my part, I strongly support this scheme, and I trust that the House will sanction the second reading of this bill.

The opponents of this project may, in the committee on private bills, introduce all the amendments they wish; however in the inter-

97S

Georgian Bay Canal Company

est of the country as well as that of all the provinces, I deem it absolutely necessary that this charter be renewed.

In fairness to the people I have the honour to represent,-I wish to state once more that I shall support heartily this bill. I trust that the House will see fit to sanction it without opposition and that, in the committee on private bills, all the amendments moved to improve the bill will be accepted.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
CON

James Arthurs

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):

I have no hesitation in speaking on this subject, not only because of my length of service in this House, but for other reasons. I have had considerable experience with this particular bill. I came here in 1908 and at that time this was a burning question, not only in northern Ontario, as my hon. friend from Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) knows, but throughout the Dominion. Shortly after that large delegations came down to Ottawa, some of them as great as the one that came here a year or so ago in connection with the automobile industry. One of the largest delegations that ever came to the capital and probably the most representative was concerned with this very matter, and it was drawn from almost every constituency in Quebec and Ontario. I am quite sure that it represented every constituency between the great lakes and Calgary, that is, as the constituencies then stood. They were unanimous in favour of the immediate construction of this canal.

The canal scheme as it was instituted by the Georgian Bay Canal Company has met with considerable criticism in this House to-night, but we must look at the state of affairs as it existed when the bill was first introduced in 1894. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mamion) pointed out that this company in the first instance indicated merely a desire to build a canal nine feet deep between the mouth of the French river and Montreal. But shortly after the scheme had been initiated by the company the Canadian Pacific Railway Company were influenced to take a hand in it and they spent a good deal of money in a very intensive survey of that portion of the canal that lay between the mouth of the French river and North Bay. They proposed to build at that time a fourteen foot canal, and I believe that apart from the exigencies of their financial situation the Canadian Pacific would probably have built the canal then. Soon after, the Canadian government itself took hold of the matter. As has been pointed out, this bill has come before parliament repeatedly, and the government made a most exhaustive survey both between the mouth of the French river and

fMr. Fontaine.]

North Bay, on the one hand, and between that point and Montreal on the other, a survey that cost Canada something like a million and a quarter. The report of that survey was distributed to the public at that time and, I believe, is now available to members in the library. The conclusion, as my hon. friend from Nipissing rightly points out, was that the scheme was perfectly feasible and there was no doubt that the canal could be constructed, very materially shortening the distance between the west and Montreal. The work could be done at a very low cost and it would enable ships of twenty-four feet draft to traverse that waterway without any difficulty whatever. This is practically the history of the case.

We have had frequent applications for a renewal of the charter, and when I came into the House first, and for many years after, every member from the west was in favour of the scheme. While this project, according to the engineers employed by our own government, was feasible as a waterway, we had various schemes which were really intended to develop the water-powers of the country at or about the same time that hydro-electric power began to give evidence of value. I remember in the old chamber of this House a gentleman, then the member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River, the late Mr. Conmee, bringing in a bill, which very nearly went through, the object of which was to construct a canal from the mouth of the Nipigon river, over to the Winnipeg river, thence to the Saskatchewan river and up to the Rocky mountains; and there was no question whatever that the object of that proposal was to acquire the power rights along the route.

Our friends, perhaps on this side of the House as well, who oppose the bill being sent to the committee, forget the fact that according to the charter as renewed from time to time-and we admit there have been many renewals from 1894 to the present date-if the promoters of this undertaking were anxious to merely develop the water-powens along the route, all they needed to do was to spend $50,000 to be on the safe side. They have not done so, nor have they taken any action such as would indicate that they have an eye to the power alone. In the meantime, parliament has made certain encroachments upon the original charter. The company at first were given shore rights, water rights, and so forth, but changes have been made and we find now that many of these rights granted to the company as originally constituted have been withdrawn by the railway committee. In the first place, the right of expropriation

Georgian Bay Canal Company

was taken by the Dominion. That is to say, at any time on one week's notice the Dominion could acquire all the rights which the company then held. This is provided for in. section 5 of the act of 1906. This took from the company any privileges which the government of the Dominion might wish to abrogate, and this after one week's notice. The next change came in 1912, when another renewal was asked for, and at that time paragraph (g) of section 8 of chapter 103 of the revised statutes of 1894 was repealed and the following substituted therefor:

Produce, lease and supply, or otherwise dispose of surplus hydraulic, electric and other kinds of power developed in connection with and for the purposes of the works hereby authorized, the rates or prices at or for which such hydraulic and electric power may be disposed of by the company to be fixed or determined by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. . . .

That put a stop to any exploitation in connection with the water-power or water rights outside of those directly connected with the works of the company. These powers were taken over by the Dominion, and the price was to be fixed by the railway board. Then we go further and find that in order to protect the provinces, in 1913, one year later, an amending act was passed which contained the following clause:

Nothing in this act, or in any other act governing or affecting the company, shall be construed to authorize or empower the company to enter, or take, or use the public lands of the province of Ontario or Quebec without the consent of the lieutenants governor in council of the respective provinces, except to the extent necessary for the purpose of constructing the canal and necessary works incidental thereto, and for the purpose of developing power necessary for the operation of the canal.

I would ask the House to pay particular attention to the closing words. The company had the right to develop power independent of the provinces only to the extent necessary to the operation of the canal; in all other respects, according to the act as it now stands, they are subject in the first place to the control of the railway commission and they have no power to create or sell any power without the consent of the lieutenants governor in council of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. So far the argument against this 'bill must fall down. It is undoubtedly true that this bill has stood for many years, and that except in surveys this company has spent very little if any money in the development of the work. But we have in our hands to-day a bill which was passed renewing a charter originally granted in 1893 for the purpose of building a railway 32649- 621

line, for which every hon. member of this House votedi or against which by his acquiescence he did not vote, and we have many of these cases.

In regard to the actual construction of the canal we in northern Ontario feel it to be a perfectly feasible scheme. I spoke for hours in the old House and in the Victoria Museum in connection with this matter and I am sure hon. members can read the facts for themselves. We believe that through this canal we can be sure of a waterway entirely within Canada and entirely under the control of Canadians, which will shorten the distance and lower the freight rate on every bushel of grain shipped from the west and sent eastward. I have no doubt of that in my own mind. The argument of the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) that the company proposes to collect tolls is very foolish, I think. If this canal were built from the mouth of the French river to Montreal and if tolls were collected, what is to be understood? It must be a cheaper means of carrying grain than the present route via the St. Lawrence, otherwise no sensible man would pay a toll to go through the canal. It is absolutely clear to anyone that if tolls are to be collected the canal must be of some benefit to the man who pays the toll.

I could go on for an hour or so, but I have no desire to delay the House. I simply want to say that in my experience in this House we have never refused to let a bill go to a standing committee. I am in favour of permitting this bill to go to committee, with the reservation that the public should be protected in every possible way and that before it finally passes this House, if it does pass, there should be a clause inserted more comprehensive perhaps than that already in the bill, giving the railway board power to adjust the rates. I would suggest that any power developed in the process of constructing this canal should be under the control as to prices, if in Ontario, of the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission, or if in Quebec it should be controlled by the government of that province. With that guarding clause I believe any reasonable man would say that this bill should take whatever fate may await it in the railway committee in the ordinary way.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):

The hour is somewhat late, Mr. Speaker, and I would hesitate to delay my hon. friends longer. As my remarks will be somewhat extended I would beg to move the adjournment of the debate.

5S0

Georgian Bay Canal Company

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink
UFA

Edward Joseph Garland

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):

On the

point of order, may I just say to hon. members opposite, who are usually exceedingly courteous to me at least and to most of my colleagues on this side, that I was perfectly well aware of the rule, and that I rose to speak presuming that hon. gentlemen opposite would not take advantage of such a rule at this time. My motion w-as not made, Mr. Speaker, for partisan purposes of any kind but simply out of consideration not only for my own physical well-being but for that of hon. members opposite, and I am sorry they have chosen to take advantage of a point of order

Georgian Bay Canal Company

of this kind. May I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that I bow to the inevitable ruling which you must give in this matter, but I am sorry that hon. gentlemen opposite have not been as courteous as they usually are under the circumstances.

Topic:   MONTREAL, OTTAWA AND GEORGIAN BAY CANAL COMPANY
Permalink

March 7, 1927