Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

Are the

present bridges privately owned?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Yes, they were built under federal charters. Those charters provide that the tolls to be charged are to come before the governor in council for approval. A new bridge was built last year, and the charter authorizing its construction contained a similar provision. I have inquired both of the Clerk of the Privy Council and of the Public Works department and have ascertained that nothing has been passed approving of the tolls that are being charged. Last year one these bridges under the purview of the federal parliament raised its tolls 100 per cent, without any redress whatever; and the only thing that can be done is to take drastic measures against this tendency. The people appealed to the

parks commission who, by threatening those in charge with the possibility of some day having action taken to force their hands, got them to restore the tolls to the former figure. They were told that some day they might be wanting something and that they would not get it unless they put the tolls back where they were, and in that way they were forced to restore them.

Mr. EULER:

Do I understand the hon.

member to say that the governor in council in this particular instance, when the tolls were raised, forced them to make the reduction?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

They were not observing the charter. There was in the charter one of those weak kneed clauses providing that the governor in council should approve of their tolls. They never got them approved. They had been charging tolls for twenty years without getting them approved and they were therefore collecting these tolls illegally. But that is aside from the question. The province of Ontario does not want to be afflicted with another such institution. When it is time to have a bridge erected there the province may want to build it. Or this parliament might want to undertake the work. I can say that there is no better investment which anyone can make, and I do not want to see this matter left in private hands. I have seen too much of that sort of thing along the Niagara river. That is one of the reasons for cur objection.

As regards concessions on the river, as I said a moment ago, the parks commission, acting for the province of Ontario, have the whole river in their charge. They even have the power contracts in their charge. To show the value of the parks commission in the last forty years, I may say that the province of Ontario once gave the rights to a power concern for all the power in the Niagara river for $25,000 a year. Fortunately, the commission had a reasonable opportunity to cancel that agreement so that to-day the province of Ontario is receiving a rental from the commission of over $500,000 a year for a concession which originally was given away at $25,000. The province of Ontario has spent $7,000,000 on that front. I may give another illustration of what has been done in this regard. When I first went on the board fifteen years ago we were renting the Table Rock house concession to private individuals. At that time we were getting $4,000 a year and we raised it to $12,000 in a year or two. Those who were enjoying the concession complained and we replied: "Very well; you

will not have it at all for we will run it ourselves." The result was that the first year

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge

we made a profit to the province of $60,000, and last year on the same concession, with the fare reduced 50 per cent, we made a net profit of $125,000.

I object to this bridge on the public ground that, first of all, this parliament has no right to override the province. I am speaking now merely of its moral right. Parliament has no right to go over the heads of the commission; it has no right to give a private concession for money-making purposes over the property of the parks commission. We object further on this ground: The improvements

which have already made over the present bridges will accommodate 100 per cent more traffic than before without any congestion. As a matter of fact, we know that the congestion last year was less than it was the year before and the year previous to that, and with heavier traffic. All that may be said to the contrary is that in a few instances, on a few days, there has been congestion. No one will dispute that. But we were met with that same objection when the bill was defeated in this parliament last year, and at that time we made a very close analysis of the situation. We put our engineers on the job and we took actual photographs of the scene every day last summer. We have those photographs arranged in order, some ten a day, covering the whole season, and we know just what days were crowded and on what days the traffic was light. There appeared before the committee a gentleman who gave us a couple of photographs-perhaps there were half a dozen of them-and he had the nerve to inform the committee that- these photographs were evidences of what happens every day at the bridge. That, of course, is idle talk; it is sheer nonsense. All I can say is that the people who came forward looking for the charter would say anything on earth in order to secure it. They even produced before the committee a sheaf of telegrams, together with a petition bearing 12,000 names. It will be intereseting to the house to know that these names obtained through the services of paid canvassers-ten cents a name. Oh yes; they did a good job. They even went to the schools and got the pupils from six to ten to sign the petition. No wonder they secured the number of names they did. That charge I made in the committee and it was not denied; nor can it be denied. I had a gentleman in the committee who gave evidence to the effect that his own boy had signed it. The school children ran home to their parents telling them, "We are going to have a new bridge; we have all signed the petition." Now, we in this house appreciate 56103-93i

the value of a petition: we also appreciate the value of telegrams sent in batches. The statement was made in the committee that, 4.000 persons from my constituency had signed the petition. I can say truthfully that not one person ever took the trouble to write to me even a note nor to send me a telegram, nor did anyone ever speak to me about the matter. They believed that I knew better than any of them did, what was needed there.

I am close to the Niagara bridge; my county takes in one of these bridges I have been discussing; and the next county is that of Welland. The parks commission, I may explain, comprises seven members, one from Lincoln, which is my county, three from Welland, one from Brant and two from Toronto, one of the commissioners from Toronto being the Minister of Highways in the provincial government. He is the seventh member. For the county in which Niagara Falls is situated, two of the members of the commission come from that city, and one comes from the same county, the same city, as the promoter of the bill, the member for the county of Welland. The commission, therefore, is unanimous; it was unanimous last year. They have presented a resolution which I want to put on record.

Mr. EULER:

Is this bridge above or below the one which is closest to the falls?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

This bridge, according to the plan submitted, is several hundred feet north of the bridge which is closest to the falls, the steel arch bridge.

Mr. EULER:

Further down the river.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Yes. Now I will not say that this bridge may not be necessary in time, but w'hat we claim is that it is not necessary now, and from what we can see it will not be necessary for a number of years. But when it does become necessary to build a bridge, surely the parties to determine where it should be located are either the parks commission or the province of Ontario. I make that statement for this reason: the bridge should co-ordinate with the main highways, which are under the control of the province of Ontario. That is only reasonable. At present the government of Ontario are opposed to it because they feel the bridge is not needed.

Mr. CANNON:

Will my hon. friend allow me a question? Would he state to the house what authority he has for saying that the government of Ontario are opposed to the bill?

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Mr. Speaker, I read to

the committee a letter from the Prime Minister, and I believe that should be conclusive evidence that the government are opposed to it.

Mr. CANNON:

opposed to it.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Mr. CANNON:

He did not say he was

Most decidedly he did. Oh, no.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I can also produce correspondence from the Minister of Highways in which he says he is strenuously opposed to it, and in which he asks me to oppose the bill.

Mr. CANNON:

Where is it?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Unfortunately I did not

bring either of these letters with me, but before I sit down I will have them, even if I have to detain the house a little longer.

My contention is that the position of this bridge should be determined by the province of Ontario, and while the Solicitor General has been good enough, to make some changes in the bill, in my opinion it does not give the province nearly enough authority in the matter. The Solicitor General does not seem to realize that we are just as much interested in the bridge as anyone, and I doubt very much whether any other government on this continent would dare pass legislation of this kind.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

May I ask my hon. friend if there is an objection to the location as well as to the bridge itself?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Absolutely.

Mr. EULER:

Does the park extend down that far? Does it extend below the bridge which is already there?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that the park referred to by the hon. gentleman is 150 acres in extent. The park commission own 2,000 acres along the river; they own the whole bank of the river from one end to the other; they control for the province every foot of land from the source of the river to its mouth, and that is why we resent being told by this parliament where we shall have a bridge placed, when it shall be placed and that it shall be constructed by a private enterprise, which will collect money from the people of this country without paying a rental or anything of that kind. It is true that the companies owming the old bridges pay no rentals, but if the government were doing it all over again a thing of that kind would never be permitted; the government would collect money

TMr. Cannon.]

from them, as they should have had a right to do, for the granting of such a privilege. Why should you give anyone the right to build a bridge for which traffic has already been created, in order to permit people to make a big profit out of that sort of proposition? From everything along the river the park commission are collecting a revenue for the province of Ontario, and we are giving service at half the former cost. Last year, after carrying on all the work we had to do, we paid to the province $200,000, and in the last three years we have paid in $1,000,000.

Now I say to the government that after these circumstances were brought to their notice they had no business to grant a charter to a private company for this bridge. It is true that the charter contains a clause under which in time this bridge will come back to the province or to the Dominion. That is one of the things I tried to get the Solicitor General to tighten up in order to make it mean something, because as it is now all its teeth have been taken out. It might mean that when the Dominion took it over we would have to pay $400 a share or more for their stock. I suggested to the Solicitor General that a change be made to make sure that the bridge would be taken over at a reasonable price, as any stock would be retired, at say $100 or $105 or $110 per share, but in that regard he has not followed my advice.

As I have already said, the province has spent $7,000,000 on that frontier for the benefit of the people of the entire world, and we believe there are enough bridges in existence to take care of the present requirements. We object to another bridge being placed there first of all because it is not needed, and we brought evidence to that effect before the committee. Just at this point I wish to place on record a resolution which was passed by the park commission on February 28, of this year, to show their attitude in this connection:

Whereas the legislature of the province of Ontario by an act dated March 30, 1885, appointed commissioners for the purpose of selecting such lands in the vicinity of the falls of Niagara within Ontario as -were in their opinion proper to be set apart for the purpose of restoring scenic features to their natural condition and for the purpose of preserving the same from further deterioration.

And whereas the commissioners reported on September 18, and December 7, 1885, recommending that an area of about 154 acres of land be acquired by the province of Ontario along the Niagara river in the vicinity of the horseshoe or Canadian falls of Niagara for a public park with its management under provincial control.

And whereas the legislature passed an act on April 23, 1887, providing the means to establish, maintain, improve and develop the lands selected as and for a public park.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge

And whereas the park lands so selected, have, during forty years of effort and at an expenditure by the commissioners of over $7,000,000 to improve and beautify the same, been extended to include property bordering on the Niagara river from lake Erie to lake Ontario, all of which are declared by the park act to be public works of Ontario.

And whereas certain applications to the parliament of Canada are pending for acts to incorporate companies with power to construct, maintain, and operate bridges across the Niagara river within a distance of 800 feet from the upper steel arch bridge.

And whereas the upper steel arch bridge has been and is being greatly improved and extended as to its terminal facilities increasing its capacity on the American side four times and on the Canadian side 100 per cent.

And whereas the lower steel arch bridge has greatly extended its terminal facilities.

And whereas the increased means of access and exit appear to be ample not only for present requirements but for some distance into the future.

Now therefore be it resolved:

1. That the Niagara Parks Commission is opposed to the construction of a new bridge in the vicinity of the upper steel arch bridge, because,

(1) it will mar the scenic beauty of the falls and park, and (2) it is not necessary to accommodate public travel.

2. That the location of a new bridge, when required, should be midway between the two present traffic bridges below the falls, where it would not have so injurious an effect upon the scenic beauty of the falls and park, and also, m order that the traffic from the bridge terminals, may not, by their proximity create congestion.

Mr. PETTIT:

TV hen was that resolution

passed?