Mr. CHAPLIN:

It was passed on

February 28 of this year.

Mr. PETTIT:

How many members were

present at that meeting?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

There was a quorum of

the board; four of the seven members were present.

Mr. PETTIT:

Was the member of the

commission for Welland city present?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

He was in Bermuda, .but

he left a 'letter to the effect that he was opposed to the bridge. Now I want to refer to a letter written by the Prime Minister of Ontario. I have here a letter written by him to the secretary of our commission under date of January 16, 192S. I might say that at this time we were fighting the bridge company for a reduction of tolls, and that will explain why the Prime Minister of the province made a reference to the matter.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

May I ask my hon. friend why, if the governor in council have authority to regulate the tolls, the matter was not referred to them.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

First of all it was not the park commissioners' business; we had nothing to do with the bridge.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

But I am

speaking of the existing provision.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

My answer to the hon.

gentleman is that we were out of our province in considering the matter at all. At that time I did not know that these clauses were in the charter, or that we had no control over these bridges. I only found that out when we got down here. When we got that information we took the means at hand of correcting the situation. Here is the Prime Minister's letter to Mr. Jackson, the engineer and general manager of the park.

I have before me yours of the 14th.

I am just as strongly opposed to the building of the additional bridge across the Niagara, as proposed, as I was last year, and for the same reasons.

The minister says the premier did not say so.

I think that the commission should use all its efforts to defeat any such project.

There is only one reason that would induce me to alter this view, that is, the necessity for relieving the public from being held up in the matter of fares by those who already hold franchises.

At the time the Prime Minister wrote that letter, the matter was in confusion. We had not succeeded in getting those tolls put back, but by the time we got here we had that matter rectified, without any reference here. It was only, as I explained before, when I came down here and had a chance to view the charters, that I found the clauses in question. The Solicitor General was good enough to tell me of them, because he had the charters in front of him. He told us how well he would look after these bridge companies in t-he future. Well, his predecessors had had the charters in their possession for twenty years, or more, and had not done so. I had confidence that we were better able to look after those matters than were such a dead bunch.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

My hon.

friend is taking a great deal of credit to himself. He knew the proper court to come to for redress and yet he did not come.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

When the minister makes that statement he ought to remember that we had nothing to do with these bridges.

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

I think you had to do with them.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

We had nothing to do with them at all. If we had it is obvious we should have taken action long ago.

Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge

Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):

You might easily have found out where to get redress.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

The people who were making complaint so strongly were the ones who should have come here to get redress. The people of Niagara Falk were the people that might reasonably be looked to to obtain redress. We butted in when it became our business to do so, when a new charter was being sought.

Now I will read a letter from the provincial Minister of Highways, which reads as follows: Toronto, March 3, 1928.

Dear Mr. Chaplin:

I am sorry to learn by the press and from your letter of the 29th ult., that you are not successful in stopping the progress of the bill dealing with the charter of the Memorial Bridge Company, Niagara Falls.

I have discussed the matter with the Prime Minister and he has suggested that the government ask Mr. Henderson to state our position and to strengthen your position in every way you think advisable.

I do not know what stronger evidence the government want of the attitude of the provincial government. The Solicitor General said a while ago that the provincial government had not declared themselves very positively. I do not know that you could get any stronger or more positive declaration than that.

Mr. CANNON:

What is the date of the letter?

Mr. CHAPLIN:

It is dated March 3, 1928.

Mr. CANNON:

Mr. Henderson appeared before the committee.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Mr. Henderson appeared before the committee and made representations from the province strenuously opposing the bridge.

Mr. CANNON:

He did not.