Mr. CONMEE.

I do not quarrel with the general principle that has been enunciated by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), but there is a good deal of suspicion in the minds of hon. members of this House that because you say in a railway charter that the company may acquire and utilize a water-power thereby you give them the right to take or expropriate that waterpower. I deny that. You do not give them any such right, and no hon. member of this House can point to a single case in this country where a water-power has been developed or utilized by virtue of any such right given by a railway charter. You are giving companies the right to operate water-powers in connection with their system, and under the restrictions imposed in the public interest by the Railway Act instead of compelling them to carry on two sets of business, keep two sets of books and have two different organizations. That is all you do accomplish by making this

condition. I am not going to contend that the amendments should be changed because an hon. gentleman has stated that he understood them a little different from what I did. I do not think it makes any difference whatever to' this company. I do not think they are prejudiced by that clause going in, but this suspicion that you are and have been giving railway companies powers that are inimical to the public interest, and that you are creating a monopoly with regard to the acquisition and operation of water-powers is all a mistake. I do not want to use a stronger expression.

Mr. LANCASTER.

It depends on the view point.

Mr. CONMEE.

It does not depend on the view point. It is impossible for a railway company under the powers of the Railway Act to take these water-powers. They cannot do it, and all you are doing is to compel them to maintain two separate organizations. 1 do not think that it is in the public interest that such should be done.

Mr. SPROULE.

If the water-power is on the right of way do they not acquire it? They expropriate the right of way, and the water-power goes with it. Take such a case as that of the Lake of the Woods where the stream crosses right underneath the railway, and where the water-power is within the limits of the right of way. Surely the railway company becomes the possessor of it?

Mr. CONMEE.

No, I have in a previous debate answered that point. There are several places where the Canadian Pacific railway, and the Canadian Northern railway cross important water-powers, but neither of these companies can develop these water-powers. At Eagle river and at Wabi-goon river the Canadian Pacific railway cross right over the head of the falls. The line of railway could not have been located better for the purpose of controlling the water-power on the Wabigoon river, as far as a railway line can control it, yet the company have no control over that waterpower. It is developed by another company altogether. The railway company never developed it, and never pretended to have any rights in the water-power. They did not secure their right of way under such conditions as to give them that right. They got their right of way from the province of Ontario, and in all the patents that are issued these water-powers are reserved. There is no case of conveying to a railway company in the deed for the right of way any right or title to the water-powers on

such right of way. It has not been done in any case that I know of, and if it were done the railway company could not develop the water-power, because you would require the right to raise the water, to build dams, intakes, and outlets, which would extend beyond the limits of any right of way. At the Lake of the' Woods the railway crosses three different branches of the Winnipeg river as it discharges from the lake, and it crosses over the head of the falls in each case. Yet these powers are developed by other people. The Lake of the Woods Milling Company controls one, the Mather Milling Company another, and Kenora another. The railway company have never pretended to have any claim on those water-powers.

Mr. SPROULE.

Why do you want this power in the Bill?

Mr. CONMEE.

There is no good purpose compelling any set of men to keep double books, a double staff, and a double organization. I do not see any sense in it.

Mr. PORTER.

All of these difficulties were advanced in the committee, and considered there. In my judgment too much care cannot be taken in the granting of these railway charters as far as the granting of water-powers is concerned. I believe that all conflict of authority between the province and the Dominion in regard to these powers has been very carefully guarded against in the wording of this Bill, and fully considered. It seems to me it ought not to be interfered with now.'

On subclause 2,

Mr. BOYCE.

I wish to express the gratification I have at hearing the changed views of the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee) with regard to the acquisition under a Railway Bill of the use of Dominion water-powers. I only hope he will continue to be a convert to that view and will not take up the time of the House bv introducing such Bills as this (which apparently have as their object not- the building of railways but the acquisition of the most valuable water-powers in Ontario. This Bill as originally introduced transgressed every doctrine that the hon. gentleman has ad vanced because it gave the promoters the absolute right to -build! dams in the Rainy fiver to obstruct navigation, to put in locks and operate them to the exclusion of public use. I am glad the -hon. gentleman has' at _last become a convert to the -doctrine that water-powers should he held for the people and used for the people.

Mr. CONMEE.

Mr. CONMEE.

I am pleased indeed if I have been able to satisfy my hon. friend. This Bill, however, was not introduced by me; my name was put on it and I have done my best to make it a perfect Bill. The clauses which the -chairman has just read which are guarding the public interest were moved not by the hon. gentleman but by myself.

Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Mr. J. HAGGART.

We are giving great powers, practically creating a trust, and it should be open to any one in the business under certain conditions to join the association.

Mr. HARRIS.

Any man engaged^ in the business of milling is entitled to join.

Mr. J. HAGGART.

That Would be all right if it was in the Bill, but the wording of the clause is that he is eligible.

Mr. HARRIS.

I do not believe that the hon. gentleman if he was a member of an association would want every one to come into it unless he had some say as to who should join. As I understand every miller in the country is eligible.

Mr. SPROULE.

I understand it is the same as in the old Bill and the difficulty then was to get them to join.

Mr. S. SHARPE.

It seems that there are some 180 members, small millers, &c., and the idea that a man wishing to become a member should put in his application recommended by two other members of the association, so that no disreputable person should become a member. The executive passes on the membership the same as in any other company.

Mr. J. HAGGART.

Could there not be some means by which a party introduced by two or three members would have a right to become a member?