The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

| | Referring to developments in Ontario, he stated that rates tae te low that they are conducive to waste.” He thought that the prin- ciple of lowering these rates might well be reconsidered. In conclusion, he pleaded that in ' Hydro affairs the welfare of the pub- lic be considered greater than par- tisan politics, He hoped that the estimates would be unanimously ap- proved, Blames Both Governments. Speaking on Hydro affairs when the debate continued last night, J. G. Lethbridge (Progressive, West Mid- dlesex) recalled that in 1921 provi- sion had been made for a fund for the extension of power to rural dis- tricts. But, said he, this fund had never been put into operation. Premier Ferguson pointed out that both the Drury Administration and the following Conservative Govern- ment had been advised that the fund as provided for was not a workable proposition. Mr. Lethbridge em- phatically declared that he biamed both Governments for not adopting it, for, said he, it would tend to equalize Hydro rates. He pointed out that the farmers of the Province complained of the inequality of rates. In one district rates varied from $18 to $150 a horsepower, “a tremendous penaliz- ation of smaller centres.”’ The debate on the Hydro esiimates was ended by Hon. W. E. Raney, Progressive Leader, who commended the Government’s efforts in bringing the Central Ontario System within its policy of municipal control, and in selling off the gas, waterworks, street railway and pulpwood busi- nesses pertaining to this system. The sooner they were sold off the better,. argued Mr. Raney. Mr. Raney particularly criticized what he termed the “inequality in costs of. Hydro to rural municipali- ies.” He took the attitude of former jmembers that a $2 rental per horse- power should be imposed on _ all Hydro development in Ontario. Such an impost would mean, he said, a jyearly revenue cf $2,000,000 that could go to the consolidated rev- enue fund and from which bonuses qto rural consumers could be paid. WARM CONTROVERSY AMONG PARTY CHIERS DEVELOPS IN HOUSE Decision Reached That Pub- lic Accounts Committee Meets This Morning MOTION PUZZLES SPEAKER The Committee of Publie Accounis of the Legislature convenes at 11 o'clock this morning. There will be no closing of the House, according to Premier Ferguson, as long as there is any public business to transact. The Prime Minister’s declaration te this effect came in the House yes- terday after an hour’s wrangling over the question of whether or not the committee would sit this session, and who was responsible for the failure to call Liberal Leader Sin- clair’s notice of motion, which was placed on the order paper March 1, and which asked that the committee be organized on March 4. This re- Sponsibility was bandied about in great shape yesterday, Mr. Sinclair and Hon. W. E. Raney, Progressive Leader, charging Premier Ferguson with it, and the Prime Minister, in reply, laying it at the door of the Liberal Leader. — oleate — We dwesd ay Mrarch seth ‘Warm Argument. Argument waxed Warm on several occasions, Mr. Sinclair alleging that the Prime Minister was trying to | create the impression that he (Mr. 'Sinclair) was in possession of in- formation regarding certain items in the public accounts that should be investigated. The Prime Minister maintained that Mr. Sinclair, on his own statement, had had his attention called to ‘‘certain matters,” and yet had “sat silent” in the House, ‘‘dere- lict in his duty to his constituency,” when all he needed to do was ask that the committee be summoned. Another knot in the controversial tangle was added when Mr. Sinclair moved, in the words of his notice of motion, that the committee be called “for March 4.” The Speaker was in- clined to view the motion as “‘ridicu- lous,’ and on the appeal of Mr. Raney, who also termed it ‘'a ridicu- lous thing,” reserved ruling on it. Mr. Sinclair declined to amend the date. Mr. Raney’s chief contention § in support of Mr, Sinclair was that pri- vate members no longer had any “rights” in the House that were rec- ognized by the Government. The Prime Minister labelled the Oppoasi- tion tactics as “stage play,” usually introduced each year in the closing hours of the session, and designed solely for “publicity purposes.” Reported “Saw-Off.” Mr, Sinclair broached the topic by referring to a report in the press that there was a ‘“‘saw-off” between the Premier and himself, so that the Public Accounts Committee was not called, He declared emphatically that no “saw-off” had been made. He re- ferred to his motion on the order paper referring to the committee. “Tt is the duty of the Premier to eall the Public Accounts Commit- tee,” he emphasized. It was the first session since he had been in the House, said the Liberal Leader, that this committee had not been assembled. It was -all, said he, a peculiar situation. “Whether the Lyons in- vestigation of last year was suf- ficient for the Government, I do not know.” he added. He pointed out that there was talk in the Queen’s Park corridors that the Pubire Ac- counts Committee might probe con- tracts with the Dufferin Construction Company and the Hagersville Quarries. The name of S. L. Squire, former Deputy Minister of High- ways, had also been mentioned, said Mr. Sinclair. Premier Ferguson, replying to the Liberal Leader, thought that in his references to press reports he-should distinguish between “the news |} columns and the humorous col- 'umns.”” The report referred to, said he, was in the latter category. “The honorable member is quite right in saying there was po saw - off,” said he, “The only saw-off with the Liberal party was on Dee. 1 Yast.’ , The Premier continued emphati- eally to declare that the responsi- bility was the Liberal Leader’s, no! the Government’s. “Call the resolution,’ said Mr. Sinclair. | “Any time at all,” replied the Premier. “Right now, then,” said Mr. Sin- clair. Serious Blunder, Says Rancy. At this juncture Hon. W. E. Raney, Progressive Leader, got into the discussion. He thought, he said sarcastically, that Mr. Sinclair had been proceeding on the assumption, which was wrong, that private mem- bers had some rights in the House. There was no doubt, Mr. Raney | went on, that the Premier should have called the order. In trying to sidestep the responsibility he was committing a serious blunder, He had a grievance, too, he said. His “Purification Bill,” as the Prime Minister had termed it, had, he said, been referred to the Committee on | Privileges and Elections, and that committee had not been called. He referred also to the bill of J. G. Lethbridge (Progressive, West Mid- dlesex)—a measure to provide pro- tection of married women with chil- dren. That bill, he said, had been referred to the Legal Committee, and no meeting of that committee had yet been called. | smallest | Liberal Leader Sinclair got back in the fray by moving, seconded by A. P. Mewhinney, that the Public Accounts Committee be called for March 4 (already past). That date, he emphasized, was the date set in his notice of resolution. He did not intend, he said, to allow the Prime Minister to create the impression that he (Mr. Sinclair) had informa- tion regarding the public accounts that he should give to the public. and which might prove the basis for an investigation. “Embarrassing Situation.” It was absolutely impossible, he conceded, to call the committee to-. ‘gether “at this late date.” No chance | remained to summon witnesses and elicit evidence. He would move the motion (for the March 4 sitting. of the committee) even though it might place him in what he termed “an embarrassing situation.” Mr. Ferguson denied that he had endeavored to give the impression that Mr. Sinclair was withholding information that should be brought out. But, said he, Mr. Sinclair, on his own statement before the House, had admitted that his attention had been called to items in the public accounts, and that “things” had been whispered in Parliamentary corridors. He submitted that even had these ‘things’ been only the rumors of something “wrong” in the public accounts, it behooved any member, on learning of them, to ask for an inquiry. And yet, he said, “what kind of a mem- ber is he who sits silent in this House and says nothing about it?” Mr. Ferguson here announced | that he would take it on himself to call the Public Accounts Committee. Mr. Raney returned to the discus- sion with the argument that it was {just as much the duty of the Gov- ernment to call the Public Accounts Committee as it was to bring the public accounts down to the House. Reserves Ruling. The Speaker of the House ex- pressed himself as puzzled over the | Sinclair-Mewhinney motion for call- | ing the committee for a day that' was 25 days past. On the face of it, he said, it seemed ridiculous. Mr. Raney urged the Speaker not to put “such a ridiculous motion,” and ask- | ed for a ruling, and Col. J. A. Currie | (Toronto-St. Patrick) suggested that | the date be amended. “I won't | amend it,” said Mr. Sinclair; “you | do it.” In the midst of the discussion the | Speaker decided he would reserve } his ruling. And so the House got | down to business. THIRD READING GIVEN TO RACETRACK ACT Vigorous Discussion Ensues Over Altering of Terms of Mortgages Sitting until ‘11.30 o'clock last night the. Ontario Legislature gave third reading to twenty-three bills. Included in these was the amend- ment to the Corporation Tax Act, providing for a reduction in the per diem tax on race-tracks, which nad evoked strong protests from the Opposition benches in its previous legislative stages. Five measures were put back in committee for amendments, then reported and given third reading. One of these bills providing for a change in law in consequence of the revision of the Statutes, drew vig- orous discussion even in the closing minutes of the session. It provided in part for’an amendment to ‘the Judicature Act to empower Judges to change ‘‘harsh’’. terms in- mort- gages. Leopold Macaulay (Conser- vative, South York) thought that it gave too much:power to Judges, that it ‘would have far-reaching effects and would bring about count- less court cases. While E. Proulx (Liberal, Prescott) argued in favor of the amendment, other members sided with Mr. Macaulay. Premier Ferguson agreed that this. amend- ment, wwhich_seemed to change the thought of the Judicature Act, might well be left out of the bill for fur- ther consideration. e