John BARR

BARR, John, M.D.

Personal Data

Party
Conservative (1867-1942)
Constituency
Dufferin (Ontario)
Birth Date
March 4, 1843
Deceased Date
November 19, 1909
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barr_(Canadian_politician)
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=494a8cbe-9876-4914-974a-77fca67aace8&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
physician

Parliamentary Career

November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
CON
  Dufferin (Ontario)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
CON
  Dufferin (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 5 of 76)


May 3, 1909

Mr. BARR.

There was never a time when the Mowat government were in the right that we were at variance with them. On every occasion we gave them all the assistance we could and we said to them: We want you to fight the question out in the highest tribunal not only in the Dominion but in the British empire. If the First Minister was then zealous of provincial rights he has certainly fallen from grace. Now, a fair offer has been made by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain). He asks that this Bill go back to the committee in order that the government of Ontario may have the right to present their case. They have no right to be heard upon this Bill at the present time, and it is not one iota less objectionable than the old Bill which was rejected after a hard fight by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House. By this new Bill we are usurping a power which we have no right to usurp.

We are endeavouring to pass one of the most important Bills that has ever been before this House without placing it before a committee in order that all parties outside of the House interested in it may have an opportunity of expressing their views, and, if necessary of opposing the Bill. Outside of the members of the House no person has any right to be heard on this question. It is a principle of our British institutions that all Bills before the House should be sent to a committee so that those whose rights are affected shall have an opportunity of going before that committee and of stating their objections. This right has been denied in this case. The proposition has been made but hon. gentlemen opposite say that they cannot accede to it. Why? Are they afraid of the people? Are they afraid of the Ontario government? Why should we depart from the usual custom? What is the urgency in connection with this Bill? If this Bill is allowed to pass, and if we accept the' statement of the Prime Minister, any Bill affecting the water-powers or assets of the province of Ontario can be passed by the Dominion parliament so long as the incorporators join with some other company in the United States or other foreign land. If that is the case every water-power in Ontario can be taken over by the Dominion. We are anxious to preserve these water-powers. The Ontario government have accomplished more in the last two years in connection with the preservation of water-powers, by forming a commission for the purpose of developing these powers than any government has done since the days of confederation. If any person can bring in a Bill of this kind affecting any water-power in the province of Ontario the result will be that the hands of the Ontario government will be tied. The work of the last few years will be set aside and this' House will be usurping a power which was never intended to be exercised by it. Under these circumstances we are quite justified in exerting our strength and power in the effort to enforce our rights. The promoter of this Bill tells us that there are no rights affected, that the government have exhausted their one fifth in connection with the road because they have made two roads, one going north and the other south. But, has he given us the evidence that they have exhausted their one-fifth? Have we not reason to believe that the government have yet in reserve much of that one-fifth? Have the government even put a road along the water's edge or any part of it? The result of the passage of this Bill will be an immediate conflict between the province and the Dominion. We do not know who is the owner of this property that we are handing over by this Bill. We are on clause 2.

Topic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink

May 3, 1909

Mr. BARR.

At this late stage of the session, when we are anxious to bring our work to a close, it is very unfortunate that this Bill should be brought up again. When the right hon. gentleman turned it down the otheT day, we thought we had heard the last of it for this session at least, but we have it popping up again like an irrepressible jack-in-the-box. The legal aspect of the question has been fully discussed, and I do not think it can be seriously pretended that this government has exclusive jurisdiction. Even if the British North America Act be strained to give it some jurisdiction, at least the Ontario government have rights in these water-powers within their own province, and ought to be left free to deal with them. We are told that the Bill passed the committee, but we must remember that it passed at a rather stormy meeting and contrary to the vote of the Ontario members, both Liberal and Conservative. It only passed by virtue of the vote of members from the other provinces who are not directly interested and who were drummed up for that purpose. I know that Ontario members on the Liberal side remained away and refused to vote for the Bill but did not like to appear and vote against it out of regard for my hon. friend the promoter of "the Bill (Mr. Conmee). I hope that no one imagines that we on this side oppose the measure because my hon. friend is the promoter. We would oppose it just as strongly if it were put forward by an hon. member on this side. We are opposing it on principle, because we believe it is of vital importance to the province of Ontario that that province should have control in this matter, and if necessary we are prepared to oppose it from day to day and thus prolong this session which we all desire to see brought to an end. I think the right hon. the Prime Minister has been ill advised in giving his consent to have this Bill brought up again. We must remember that the company in question is largely controlled by American citizens, who will no doubt, in the working out of the measure place the interest of their own country first. Let me remind the House that when the Niagara Power Company Bill was brought in a year ago, we took the precaution to provide that only the surplus power should be sold on the other side of the line, but no such precaution is taken in this measure, and the company may sell the greater part of its power in the United States. Under the circumstances, the Bill is a most dangerous one. The Ontario government have appointed an electric commis-

sion which has done good work in the province of Ontario, and that policy has been endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the free and independent electors of that province. If there is one Act more than another of the Ontario government which the people appreciate it is their reserving of these powers for the province. Under the circumstances, it would be a blunder and a crime against the province of Ontario if we should pass this Bill. This House ought not to put itself in a hostile attitude to any province. We ought to remember that our water-powers are the greatest assets which our provinces possess. They are the white coal of the country, to which we look to take the place of the ordinary coal when that is exhausted. Under the circumstances we ought to be very careful not to give a perpetual franchise which will take this power out of the province altogether. This is one of the greatest water-powers we have in that part of the country. Without going into the legal question, it seems to me that the province is better fitted to deal with this asset than is the Dominion parliament. Charters of this kind are usually given by the Ontario government; and if this session be delayed on account of this Bill, the responsibility must Test on this government.

Topic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Subtopic:   ONTARIO AND MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY.
Full View Permalink

May 3, 1909

Mr. BARR.

Topic:   EDITION
Full View Permalink

April 29, 1909

Mr. JOHN BARR (Dufferin).

I quite approve of this very important legislation.

I believe it is in the interests of the farming community, as there is no doubt that farmers have been gulled by food stuffs which contained very little substance. For instance the manufacturers of pea meal for human food preserve the hulls of the neas, grind them up and sell them for cattle feed as pea meal, although they contain very little substance. Therefore it is of the greatest importance that these feed stuffs should be analysed and that the farmers should know the value and the strength of what they are purchasing. At the same time there is force in the argument of the hon. member for East Grev that the druggists may have large stocks of these goods on hand. There is little sale for them except in the spring and fall and large quantities are necessarily carried over. Injustice may be done to these druggists by cutting off the sale of their present stock in the fall. T think that the suggestion of my hon. friend is worthy of consideration.

Bill reported, read the third time, and passed. .

Topic:   COMMERCIAL FEEDING STUFFS.
Full View Permalink

April 26, 1909

Mr. BARR.

When this question was put on the Order Paper the money was not paid. How is it payment was held back so long?

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   PORT HOOD BREAKWATER.
Full View Permalink