1924-06-03

COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 23 respecting the Commercial Travellers Mutual Insurance Society.
Motion agreed to, amendments read the second time and concurred in.

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with due deference to yourself, might I rise to a point of order? I am a little at sea. As I understand it, this is the opening of to-day's session. Have we passed the orders of the day?


Mr. SPEAKER:: We come back to the
orders of the day. After eight o'clock on Tuesday the first hour is for private bills; that is the standing order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite understand that,
Mr. Speaker, but I was under the impression we should take the orders of the day first at the opening of the House in the usual way. I want to be sure, because I have some questions to put on the orders of the day.


Hewitt Bostock: Rule 25 covers the case. It provides:
The ordinary daily routine of business in the House shall be as follows:-Tuesday: government notices of motion; government orders; public bills and orders; questions; notices of motions; from eight o'clock p.m., private bills for the first hour.
We will come back in a moment to the usual routine proceedings of the afternoon; but at eight o'clock every Tuesday the Speaker must call private bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 145, respecting The Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Parent.
Bill No. 146, for the relief of Angus Martin. -Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Lester Ernest Greenwood.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Charles Law-son.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 149, for the relief of Margaret Hickey.-Mr. Anderson.
Bill No. 150, for the relief of William John Chenery.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of Florence Roberts.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 152, for the relief of Hugh Allan Macdonald.

Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 153, for the relief of Wilhelmine Christina Slater.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 154, for the relief of Emma Doris Perley.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 155, for the relief of Arthur Hill. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Emily Elizabeth Reeder.-Mr. Clifford.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 158 (from the Senate), to incorporate Merchants Casualty Insurance Company. -Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 159 (from the Senate), to incorporate The Laurentian Insurance Company.- Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 160 (from the Senate), for the relief of Merlin Englehart Clubine.-Mr. Martell.
Bill No. 161 (from the Senate), for the relief of Victoria Stella Haswell.-Mr. Gordon.
Bill No. 162 (from the Senate), for the relief of Thyrza Ewart (otherwise known as Thyrza Hodgins).-Mr. Harris.
Bill No. 163 (from the Senate), for the relief of Rebecca Messer.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 164 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Henry Kirkwood.

Mr. Anderson.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propound a question or two to the government and also to make a complaint-shall I say?-regarding answers to questions, particularly to one question to which I am now going to refer. I am not objecting to the right of the government to refuse an answer provided they take the responsibility of so doing, but answers when given should be accurate and complete,

Japanese Immigration
because we depend upon the information given lby the government for our guidance in considering public affairs.
I wish to draw the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to an important question that I put on the order paper the other day and that was answered yesterday, a question regarding immigration. The third question was as follows:
Has the government entered into a new agreement covering Japanese immigration with the Japanese government? If so, has a quota of 150 been fixed upon?
The answer to that was:
As a consequence of negotiations between representatives of the governments of Japan and Canada last year, the Japanese government undertook to restrict to 150 annually the number of Japanese emigrants going to Canada as household servants and agricultural labourers.
The next question was:
If a quota has been fixed, does the said quota include all classes of immigrants, such as merchants, students, etc., or are such admitted in excess of the said quota?
The answer to that was:
Answered by the answer to No. 3 above.
The inference being that the total restriction was to 150. In the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Japan, a copy of which I have in my hand, provision is made for four or five classes of immigrants. For instance, there is the class which includes those previously resident in Canada, and the wives and children of such. Then, there are those who are in domestic service, when evidence of engagement is given. Then there is this class,-and this is of vital importance: provision is made for the admission of contract emigrants. These are hot covered in the answer to my question, and the result is that the whole situation is left in a vague and ambiguous state. In addition to that, there are emigrants brought in under contract by Japanese resident agricultural holders. Now, these are not necessarily included in the answer given, which refers to agricultural labourers and domestic servants. So, the answer does not, in reply to my question, give that light and information to which we think we are entitled. That is my complaint. I wish to ask the Prime Minister if he would have this previous set of questions again surveyed and a more complete answer given.
Secondly, I want to ask him in connection with this very vital and important matter whether he has noticed a despatch from Tokio stating that in view of the dispute between the American government and the Japanese government, the latter consider themselves
freed or liberated from all obligations to restrict emigration from Japan to Canada or Mexico, citing as the ground for their repudiation of these agreements the fact that when the gentleman's agreement was entered into with the United States some years ago Japan agreed with the United States that they would enter into similar agreements with Mexico and Canada as an additional protection to the United States. There was the suggestion in that connection that the so-called underground route was being frequently used and that immigrants were smflggled in from both borders. Now', the Japanese government declare that since the United States has passed legislation which they declare objectionable they are at liberty to repudiate both the agreements referred to, namely, that with the Mexican government and that with the government of Canada. If the Prime Minister has not noticed this I would draw his attention to it and ask him to make careful and early inquiry in order to provide for the protection of Canada in case the Japanese government actually give effect to this statement issued from Tokio yesterday.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I agree with my hon.
friend that any answer to a question should be as complete as possible, and I can assure him in regard to the question he has just asked that there was no intention on the part of the government not to give him the information he was seeking. I think the answer to the third part of the question [DOT] just quoted was as mentioned, that an agreement had been made on the part of the Japanese government restricting the numbers of agricultural labourers and domestic help coming into this country to 150. I think those were the classes covered by the previous, so-called gentleman's agreement,


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; that is my point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I am very glad my hon. friend has directed my attention to the question, because the purpose of the agreement with Japan was that the numbers being limited to 150 were the numbers corresponding to the classes that were included in the gentleman's agreement. I shall make a point of looking carefully into the question and seeing that my hon. friend gets a further answer.
As to the other question: The agreement with Canada was made before there was any agreement on the part of Japan with the United States or any country, and I should be very much surprised if the Japanese gov-
Supply-Interior

emment were to in any way claim that the Canadian government's agreement with Japan was affected by anything that happened except as between Canada and Japan. However, I shall look into that matter as well.



OCEAN FACILITIES AT HALIFAX

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. W. A. BLACK (Halifax):: On April 10th, I received answers to two questions which I had asked. The second question was whether it was the intention of the government to complete the ocean terminals at Halifax as originally planned or otherwise, without delay; and the reply was that the matter was under the consideration of the government. May I ask if any further information can now be afforded?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think, Mr. Speaker, the
answer is equally applicable at the moment. Nothing has been definitely decided as yet. The matter is still under consideration.



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Dominion Lands and Parks-for surveys and investigations of water and power resources, including the Dominion Hydrometric Survey; for the reclamation of lands by irrigation and drainage and for the administration of the Acts in connection therewith, etc, $547,000.
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Argenteuil) (Minister of the Interior):: I understood,
Mr. Chairman, that this was the last item to . pass before we rose on the last occasion, these estimates were up. We had a very long discussion on it.


The CHAIRMAN:: We have not got it
marked as passed. I will look up the record and see.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister will recall
the discussion in connection with this item o,n a previous occasion. The minister then made some very satisfactory reference to that Spray lakes case which has been engaging a great deal of public attention. Since then I have received a very large number of protests-as, I believe, have other hon. members -a number of which I forwarded to the department. Would the minister be good enough to give us any information he has as to the status of this matter at the present

time, and say if there has been any development since; or if the minister's declaration on that occasion, which I welcomed very much, that nothing would be done for a year at least, still stands?


Charles A. Stewart: There is
nothing new, except that the premier of Alberta, on behalf of the Alberta government, has made formal application for the Spray lakes reservoir; that is all that has happened since. The Calgary Power company had, of course, applied before that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That will, perhaps, change the situation somewhat. As the situation was when we left the item before, we had an understanding that nothing would be done until next year at least, that the matter would stand just exactly where it was in the meantime. If that is still the case, I have nothing further to say.


Charles A. Stewart: I havenothing new to add, except that that application is now in.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister will pardon
my persistency, but in view of this new application from the Alberta government-


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, my
word to the committee stands. I merely wanted to mention that the application had been made.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The minister appears
to have united Water Powers with the Reclamation branch. What has become of Mr. Drake?


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Drake
retired. We had his services during the past year, but he is now retired from the service.


Arthur Meighen: Did he retire after the
manner of Dr. Torrance?


Charles A. Stewart: No, not
quite.


Arthur Meighen: What was the method?
Is he on superannuation?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, he was retired under the Calder Act.


Arthur Meighen: A pretty young man.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know what his age is.


Arthur Meighen: It is only about 45.
Does the minister consider a man is all over at about 45?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no.


Arthur Meighen: That is about his age.

Supply-Interior
/5755


Charles A. Stewart: The work of the Irrigation branch is being reduced continuously; it is almost disappearing.


Arthur Meighen: Irrigation?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. My hon. friend will recollect that the chief work of the Irrigation branch was surveys in the province of Alberta. That work has been practically completed so far as preliminary surveys are concerned. There are a number of very small schemes yet to be examined. The large district known as the Pearce Irrigation district, north of the Red Deer river, was the last large one that was investigated.


Arthur Meighen: How much of this is for
irrigation?


Charles A. Stewart: We had all
that information the other night. The amounts are: Irrigation, $173,000; reclamation, $52,000; water powers, $330,000; total, $555,000.


Arthur Meighen: Is all this work under
Mr. Challies?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Is the minister simply
completing irrigration survey work that has been under way for some years? The minister has not entered into any capital or other liabilities in conjunction or jointly with the provinces for actual irrigation works?


Charles A. Stewart: I db not
understand my right hon. friend. There has been no new arrangement except that entered into when I was premier of Alberta and when my right hon. friend was Minister of the Interior at Ottawa, namely, that the preliminary surveys and investigational work should be done by the Department of the Interior, and that all subsequent work should be undertaken by the provinces.


Arthur Meighen: I compliment the minister on following so closely the lines that were being pursued when he entered the department.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Will any
work be done in Alberta this year under this vote?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, there
are investigations, a number of them small, being carried on in southern Alberta-work asked for by various people and which will be carried out by very small parties.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is
the nature of the work being done by these small parties, and where is it being performed?


Charles A. Stewart: I read a
list of them at the last sitting of the committee when the estimates of the department were under consideration. If my hon. friend will refer to Hansard he will find every one of them set out in detail.


Arthur Meighen: What is the position of the old controversy as to the use of the St. Mary and Milk rivers-I mean the controversy between the United States and Canada? I hope it has been settled satisfactorily.


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that measurements are still being taken, but the basis for a division has been arrived at. I confess that explanation seems a little vague, but I understand that the approximate amount of water belonging to both countries has been practically settled. Hydrometric measurements are still being carried on, however.


Arthur Meighen: What is the basis of the division?


Charles A. Stewart: I have not got that information here, but I will be very glad to get it for my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It was the most important matter in the whole branch in my time, and I should like very much to have the basis of division of that water. I may, perhaps, bring to the mind of the officers of the department what the controversy was over. The waters of the St. Mary and Milk rivers are formed by streams which intersect the territory of both countries. The question at issue was whether or not the United States had the right to use for irrigation purposes the water of a stream which finally flowed into Canada, either before it flowed in or after it flowed out and before it flowed back again. What I should like to get at is just what the International Joint Commission decided was the right of the United States in respect of water of that kind. If the decision was adverse to Canada we shall not get much water out of the St. Mary and Milk rivers, and that is really all the water there is available for southern Alberta.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall be
glad to get a memorandum on the subject in the morning for my right hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: It is really the only
important matter in the Irrigation branch.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite recollect the controversy-how important it was
Sup-ply-Interior

to southern Alberta and how anxious we were about that adjustment; but at present I have not with me the exact details relating to the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To cover professional assistance engaged by the Governor in Council to assist the departmental officers who are advising re international and boundary waterway questions-$8,000.
Charles A. Stewart: This item is simply for the purpose of paying for any necessary assistance that may be required in connection with international waterway disputes. Investigations are being carried on in order that we may have the information necessary to present our case very fully and completely, and so protect the interests of Canada. We have, as my right hon. friend will note, another item in the estimates that is almost similar to the one for which this $8,000 is being asked. I may say this is a new item, it has not appeared there before.


Arthur Meighen: This $8,000?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: It is shown here as
appearing before.
Mr. STEW'ART (Argenteuil):	I beg the
right hon. gentleman's pardon.


Arthur Meighen: What I cannot understand1 is why we should now be employing counsel to help us get our share if the matter has been decided.


Charles A. Stewart: It is not the St. Mary river alone that is in question; there are a great many matters in dispute. For example there is still the question of the watershed in the Lake of the Wood's district which is not by any means settled' and measurements are still going on. There is also the matter of the diversion of water by the Chicago Drainage Commission which is very much unsettled. We have assumed the responsibility of obtaining full information, both in the United States and Canada, with respect to these very vital matters concerning international waters which from time to time arise between the two countries.


Arthur Meighen: I do not object to a vote to sustain Canada's position before the International Joint Commission, especially in relation to the Chicago drainage canal. However, I do not really see that anything is being done except the exchange between the two governments of some correspondence, some futile correspondence, as respects the Chicago drainage canal. Looking through 
the estimates of last session I cannot see there any reference at all to this vote, although the item appears in the estimates of the present session as having been voted last year.
Mr. STEIfy ART (Argenteuil):	I may say
that this is earmarked for this particular purpose. We have no funds, unless we earmark them, to hire outside service. We cannot use the general vote for that purpose, and we have found ourselves handicapped in that connection; so that this year we have this vote for this particular purpose, to give us an opportunity to use it, if we require it. That is the only reason for the vote.


Arthur Meighen: The item is reappearing as a re-vote-as having been voted last year and being voted again now. It is not in last year's estimates.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know how it comes to appear in that shape. It should be an entirely new vote, in order to give us authority to. pay it out for the purpose for which we require the money.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Has the minister any idea why that stands by itself as an error because if we cannot rely upon the government's official figures as tabled, we have absolutely no check one way or the other. Here is an item that ought to be looked upon as an $8,000 increase for this year specifically. Instead of that it appears as though it were voted last year, and the minister tells us it was never voted.


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that the $8,000 and the $651,000 make up the $659,000 which was voted as one sum last year. The two amounts are segregated now.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then it is not a new thing.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
this difficulty about it, that we cannot use it for the purpose for which we require it, unless we can reduce this vote by the $8,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then it is not new at all, and my hon. friend's explanation a minute ago was wrong.


Charles A. Stewart: The total
vote last year, including the $8,000, was $659,000. We want to use part of this vote for this specific purpose, and for that reason we segregate the $8,000. That $8,000 was in the total vote last year.

Supply-Interior


Mr. HARRIS:: Could the minister give us
more specifically the particular purpose for which -this money is going to be used? I understood him to say it had relation to the International Joint Commission and the Chicago drainage canal-the proceedings that are going on at present.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but I
was pointing out that we had no vote for the employment of outside service last year. We require such service frequently, and1 I am asking that part of the vote be segregated for this purpose.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the minister explain what this vote has to do with the next vote of $2,000, allowance to W. J. Stewart, Chief Hydrographer, and to J. B. Challies, Director of Water-Power?


Charles A. Stewart: That has
been in the estimates continuously.


Joseph Henry Harris: And in the same connection?


Charles A. Stewart: No, these
gentlemen are officers of the department.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is that amount sufficient to cover the cost of the negotiations which are going on, or the negotiations proposed by the department in Washington?


Charles A. Stewart: No, part of this $8,000 goes to these gentlemen. They are employees.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will $8,000 be sufficient to make proper representations to Washington with regard to the drainage diversion at Chicago?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I do not think so; but we have officers who are working on this all the time. We need some money occasionally to pay for services by parties who are not attached to the department. Mr. Stewart, the paid official of the department, is in Washington watching the case before the committee. That does not entail any payment out of the $8,000.


Joseph Henry Harris: Is there any possibility of a let-up in watching the case at Washington, due to the fact that the $8,000 is voted? Does the minister feel that it is sufficient to cover the requirements of our representation?


Charles A. Stewart: The minister does not admit that there is any let-up.


Joseph Henry Harris: Will the minister tell us
exactly where we stand with regard to the proceedings at Washington and the Chicago drainage canal situation?


Charles A. Stewart: I gave the
House the information the other day, in reply to a question by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) or some hon. member on that side of the House. There is a very serious controversy between the city of Chicago and the surrounding states which are opposed to the diversion of the water at Chicago. Canada has never admitted that it agreed to the diversion of a foot of water through the Chicago drainage canal. True, the Secretary of War for the United States gave permission to the Chicago drainage district to divert 4,167 cubic feet per second. Since that time it is estimated that they have increased that diversion to 10,000 cubic feet per second, which is estimated to be the amount passing through at the moment for the purpose of diluting their sewage, and hence the controversy is going on between the United States and all the states and cities surrounding Chicago within the area of two or three hundred miles. It has been a matter of litigation in the courts. We have been watching that litigation very carefully. The government of Canada have repeatedly protested officially to the British Embassy against further diversion of this water, or against any diversion, maintaining that we have not agreed and do not propose to agree to any diversion of water through the Chicago drainage canal. The solicitors who are appearing for the Chicago drainage system state that in a memorandum prepared by the old waterways commission, prior to the inception of the International Joint Commission, when the question of diversion for power purposes at Niagara Falls was under discussion, there was a reference to the Chicago drainage scheme. Hon. members know without going into detail that there is at the present moment a considerable portion of that power passing every year into the United States for the use of the factories of that country, something in the neighbourhood of 160.000 horse power is being exported. But that did not at any time form any part, so far as I or any of the officers of the department can discover of the reports submitted to the government of Canada, nor was it ever admitted by the Dominion of Canada. That is the position the government is maintaining still. To say that we should get into a controversy when the matter is at present in the courts, or was up to a day or two ago, and is being vigorously protested against by all the people surrounding that district and all the
Supply-Interior

people affected by it, particularly the city of Milwaukee and all the cities along the shores of lake Michigan would hardly seem to me to be proper. I do not think at the present time we should do more than we have done in this matter.
A committee of the United States senate are investigating this matter, and will present a report to the senate with respect to the whole controversy, and the best information we can get is that there is not a very serious likelihood of Chicago being able to maintain its position, but Canada has from time to time registered her protest in the proper channel and we have been kept fully informed of every move in connection with this controversy.


Mr. GERMAN:: I would like to call to the attention of the minister the claim made on behalf of the Chicago Drainage Commission in connection with the arguments at Washington regarding this water diversion. It was suggested that Canadians were taking more water from lake Erie for electrical power purposes than they were entitled to take under the treaty arrangements between the two countries, and the fact was instanced that the Cataract Power Company, which is developing electrical power at Decew Falls and taking water for the purpose of electrical development at the Welland canal, was drawing from lake Erie water in excess of what Canada was entitled to take under the treaty arrangements. I think it will be well for the minister to emphasize the fact that the Cataract Power Company is not taking one gallon of water from lake Erie beyond what would be taken for the purposes of navigation of the Welland canal. The Cataract Power Company is taking simply surplus water, water which would not be used for the purposes of navigation even if they did not take it. There is a large volume of water in lake Erie from the summit level of the Welland canal to the brow of the mountain which is about fourteen miles from lake Erie where the locks begin. The Cataract Power Company is taking simply the surplus water which is not required beyond that fourteen mile limit for the purposes of navigation of the canal. The same quantity of water would be flowing through the canal even though the Cataract Power Company was not using the water at all. Therefore, the argument of those who maintain that Chicago is entitled, based on that suggestion, to 10,000 cubic feet per second, is absolutely erroneous and the minister should emphasize that, so far as he can, in the discussions that are taking place.


Arthur Meighen: The importance of the
Chicago drainage canal diversion is sinking home pretty deeply into the minds of the Canadian people. It has been impressed upon us with greater and greater emphasis for years. It is costing us more, month by month, and year by year. The utter callousness of the whole proceeding on the part of the Chicago drainage canal district is becoming more and more brazen, and surely we must now realize that any pressure of mere words, particularly of mere letter writing, is not going to get us anywhere in rescuing us from the position we are in. The Chicago drainage canal district is extracting 10,000 cubic feet per second from our waters, or rather from the joint waters of the two countries. It is lowering the level of our lakes and of our rivers. It is destroying the efficiency of our' canals. It is costing in our shipping millions per annum. It is costing in the upkeep of our canals millions more. This is being extracted out of the pockets of the tax-payers of Canada and is being paid for by the sweat of the people of Canada. I do not think I overstate the case when I say that it is all utterly without any colour of right whatever. To argue that behind the pages of the treaty which gave us a right of power development and them a right of power development at Niagara, and beneath the lines of that treaty, there was a reason for the larger percentage of the power being given to us in the fact that Chicago had a certain water diversion, seems to me so sophistical, so grotesque, that I cannot understand how it appeals to those who dignify it with the name of argument. The treaty speaks for itself. By the terms of the treaty, by every line and letter of it, we are ready to abide; but we do not like to be referred to what is supposed to have been in the back of the head of somebody who wrote it, and it does not seem to become the dignity of a great country to ask us to be so referred.


Charles A. Stewart: I hope my
right hon. friend does not misunderstand me.
I merely mentioned in passing that that was one of the arguments used by the solicitors for the Chicago drainage canal district.


Arthur Meighen: I know that and I am expressing my opinion of it now. The water used at Niagara is returned to the Great Lakes system. The water used at Chicago is taken away, turned down the Mississippi into the gulf of Mexico and it never comes back into the Great Lakes at all. There is the difference. Return the water to the Great

Supply-Interior
Lakes and we are satisfied. Take it into the gulf of Mexico and we never can be satisfied.
This thing has now reached a magnitude where it is of first and primary consequence.
It is getting to be of vital consequence to the Dominion, and I press upon the government the need of exerting more pressure than mere pen and ink. Something must foe done.
I do not use that language in
9 p.m. any threatening sense; but I do say that there are powers of pressure in our hands, and we ought to gather all the strength behind our motion that we can put behind it in order to get this thing to a head quickly. We should not depend upon the mere rights of litigants as between the city of Chicago on the one hand and the United States government on the other. Our controversy is not with the city of Chicago. Our controversy, necessarily, is with the government of the United States. We look to the government of the United States to stand up and see that justice is done as between that country and our own.
I do not know that we are in a very dignified position when we appear as being represented the same as an American town or a county or a village before some committee of the United States senate. A committee of the United States senate is not the tribunal before which we should go. We go to the United States government and we say to the United States government:	There is our
right; that right you admit; that right no sensible or fair-minded person can dispute; that right we call upon you to make good. I know that all matters of international negotiation are very difficult, but I think it is well that in this parliament we should stand up and speak our minds. We have submitted to this thing year after year, and from one decade to another and thus submitting, the iron has -been pressed into us deeper and deeper. The prospect of relief seems to me to be getting less and less. The penalty is getting heavier and heavier. It is when we find ourselves in situations of this kind that we realize how we need the united effort of us all and the influence that we all can exert together-when I refer to "all", I mean the Empire as a whole-in order to bring to us our rights in this regard. I know of nothing more vital to Canada than that we should now get to the point where there is going to be an end of this continuous and increasing diversion at Chicago.
The minister is quite right. We have never agreed to the diversion of a foot of water; we have tolerated it year after year, and our toleration has been played upon and imposed
upon by the Chicago drainage canal district, multiplying its diversion time after time until now they have it at a stage where at least the volume stated by the minister, if not a great deal more is being wantonly extracted. They actually contemplate -going further and further. I have stated my position, and I am ready to support the government in bringing to bear the utmost pressure in its power upon the United States government, and in so directing its policy that it will be able to gather other forces at its side for this purpose.


Mr. BRISTOL:: Can the position be properly taken by Canada that the United States is liable for all damages which our people are suffering by reason of this diversion? It seems to me that if the United States is allowing one of its states to break the treaty governing the control of these waters, and in consequence we are suffering millions of dollars damages, the government should make a claim for those damages as well as a request for the cessation of the illegal diversion.


Mr. MILLAR:: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. members who have just spoken have tried to impress on the government the importance of this matter. I should like to speak of it from the western viewpoint. It has been proven beyond doubt that the level of the waters of the upper lakes has fallen two or three feet in the last year or two. I do not know just how much water is taken out by the Erie canal, nor how much is used for power purposes on the Niagara river. I was wondering if the minister had collected any data to indicate exactly to what extent the water level in the upper lakes has been lowered by the Chicago drainage canal diversion. At the investigation which took place in Washington a short time ago I think those who represented Chicago let the cat out of the bag by indicating that they had some hope of making the canal a transportation channel to the Mississippi river. I do not know to what extent they are using it for transportation purposes now.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, for transportation
and power.


John Millar: It is not necessary now, I think, to repeat what has been stated several times in this House, that the western provinces find it very difficult to compete in the markets of the world, and that the saving of a few cents per bushel on the transportation of their grain means a great deal to them. I remember reading some time ago in a departmental report issued by the United States government that after a large vessel
Supply-Interior

is loaded down to about fifteen or sixteen feet the loss of one foot in the water level means a loss of 980 tons of cargo-carrying power. I have made some calculations which lead me to believe that that estimate is about correct. One can readily see what it means to have the level of the upper lakes lowered about 24 feet and the large freighters forced to make their trips with only part of their full cargo. It means extra charges, and, as we know, all the charges are thrown back on the producer. In other words, if we are compelled to pay 3 or 4 cents per bushel more for the carriage of our grain to Montreal, we will receive that much less at the country elevator. If that is continued, and perhaps made worse, so that our loss becomes heavier in future years, it will mean that Russia, the Argentine and other wheat producing countries will have a still greater advantage over us than they have at the present time in the grain markets of the world. In a report by Secretary Wallace of the United States Department of Agriculture I notice that in making some comparisons he stated that the Argentine has an advantage over Canada and the United States in transportation of about 10 or 12 cents a bushel from the fact that very little grain is grown in the Argentine at a greater distance than 400 miles from tidewater, and most of it is grown much nearer, and that while the grain growers have to pay a higher rail rate, yet it is only for a very short distance, and this gives them a considerable advantage. So the minister can readily see that everything should be done in order to cheapen our transportation rates. I am very glad that the discussion has taken place, and I hope that the minister will realize that written protests should now give place to something stronger, if this is possible.


William Manley German: Mr. Chairman, I wish
to associate myself most emphatically with every word that has been uttered by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in regard to this matter. Those of us who live on the water transportation routes appreciate the fact that the lowering of the water level by a few inches means, not thousands, but millions of dollars extra in the cost of transportation; and we know that the water levels of all the Great Lakes are being lowered by reason of this diversion.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: And all down
to the sea.


William Manley German: Yes, I believe it affects
the St. Lawrence as well. The city of Toronto in their corporate capacity sent representatives to attend the meetings in Wash-IMr. Millar.]
ington. I strongly urge on the government the advisability of engaging someone who is thoroughly conversant with all the circumstances and to send him to Washington to protest authoritatively on behalf of the Canadian government against the Chicago drainage canal diversion. So far as I know there has been no real protest on behalf of the Canadian government. I thoroughly agree with the right hon. leader of the opposition that an effective protest should be made, not by municipal representatives, but officially by the government of Canada to the government of the United States against the violation of the treaty, coupled with a request that the violation should be stopped by the United States government preventing the, city of Chicago continuing this illegal diversion. I would strongly urge on the minister the importance of the government taking prompt action to put a stop to this violation of our treaty rights.


Mr. MANION:: I should like to associate myself with this protest. There is an aspect of the question which I have not heard touched upon, that of expense, which is of the utmost importance to the Dominion. At the present time there is a pronounced drop in the level of lake Superior, whether due to the Chicago drainage canal diversion or not I do not know, for it is argued by some authorities that the upper lakes are not affected by the operation of that canal because of the natural outflow of the upper lakes into the lower.


Charles A. Stewart: I think
they mean lake Huron and Georgian bay.


Robert James Manion: At any rate there is a
very marked drop in the level of lake Superior; I forget the exact amount, but I think it is about a couple of feet. Whether or not it has any bearing on this question I do not know, but if you lower the lake levels it means that millions of dollars have to be spent on the hafibours in order that the boats may enter them as they have done in the past. The harbours at the head of the lakes, for example, which are built not for the benefit of the head of the lakes alone, but for the whole of western Canada, have had something like thirteen or fourteen millions spent on them in dredging, the construction of breakwaters, and so on. The same is very largely true of the harbour at Toronto and of all the harbours on the Great Lakes- Goderich, Owen Sound, Kingston, Prescott, Port Colborne, and others. If the water level is lowered to any considerable extent it

Supply-Interior
means the expenditure of additional millions in order to deepen the harbours sufficiently to permit* the continuance of navigation. I do not think any of us can add strength to the protest offered by the right hon. leader of the opposition, with which apparently everybody in the House agrees. I sincerely hope the government will do everything in their power to impress on the government of the United States the importance of this question to Canada.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Perhaps the minister
might give the committee some information as to what protests have been made on behalf of the government of Canada, with details as to when they were made and what was the character of them, together with any communications received in reply. If the government has not taken any action by way of protest they have been derelict in their duty. The situation is apparently becoming very acute. Besides, Canada should be placing herself in a position where it cannot be said by the United States that we have stood by and allowed this diversion to take place without protest. If it is true that the treaty which has been referred to provides against any such diversion as we are complaining of, then necessarily there will be a claim on behalf of Canada for damages or compensation. Now, we should be laying a foundation for that claim; we should be pointing out to the government of the United States that we intend to make such a claim. Certainly we should not sit down and take all this kind of thing without doing anything. If the government can say that everything possible has been done, very good, but we surely ought to know about it. There is no occasion for secrecy in a matter of this kind; on the contrary, it is one upon which I think the committee and the country are entitled to be fully informed.


Mr. KENNEDY (Glengarry):: It is hard to estimate the importance of this question, to the people of Canada. I would like to associate myself with what has been said by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) in respect to this diversion of water. It very seriously affects all the lower lake levels. I have the honour to represent a portion of the country which may be very vitally affected if this diversion continues or is in any way increased. Millions upon millions of dollars have been spent not only in the harbours and along the lakes and rivers but also in dredging the channel in the river St. Lawrence. This channel has had to be repeatedly dredged and deepened, and if the
water level is to be lowered by continued diversion it will simply mean that constant deepening and dredging of the river channel will be necessary. The question is important also from the point of view of power as well. Water diverted at Chicago might otherwise be available for the development of power at Niagara and be used over and over again on the river St. Lawrence. So that the damage that has already been done to Canada and that may in the future be done if this diversion is not stopped cannot be overestimated. I would support the government in their doing something more than entering mild protests at Washington against the diversion of this water at Chicago. I think the time for mild protests has long since passed; something a little bit more effective might be done in the future.


Charles A. Stewart: What would my hon. friend suggest?


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister asks, what does the hon. gentleman suggest.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not ask my hon. friend that question. I asked the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Kennedy).


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, I know, and the hon. member sat down, perhaps rightly thinking that the government, which is charged with the responsibility of preserving Canadian rights, will do something to preserve them. I will ask my hon. friend this question: Why is it, as the government sees it, that specific Canadian rights not only are flaunted and disregarded but continue to be flaunted and disregarded? What reason can the government give the committee?


Mr. BUREAU:: Since when were they
flaunted and disregarded?


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend is going beyond the bounds of reason when he suggests that the government has been flaunted-


Henry Lumley Drayton: No, no. I am
saying this-


Charles A. Stewart: What does my hon. friend suggest?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Apparently everybody in the House admits-not only admits, but claims-that diversion is going on and going on, that lake levels are dropping and dropping. Apparently the government have been making some protest about it, but they get nothing; at least they have not told us of anything. I ask the plain question: What reason can the government give the committee for the withholding of Canadian rights?
Supply-Interior

Mr, STEWART (Argenteuil): No one recognizes better than my hon. friend does that there are international courtesies with respect to all these matters. I feel just as strongly as the right hon. leader of the opposition does about this matter. I feel that Canada is entitled to redress, as the hon. member for Centre Toronto, I think, suggested-more than that. Any one who is following this controversy must know that Chicago has been offering foi a considerable period of time to make redress for the diversion. Do you think it would be wise for the people of Canada to offer to take any redress for the diversion of 10,000 feet of water which belong to the Great Lakes and to the waterways of Canada? That water should be returned to the Great Lakes, should not be diverted at all. Rather than have payment for diversion we should have the water returned to us. That is the position this government takes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Well what are you doing?


Charles A. Stewart: What are
we doing? We are courteously, as any government would do, as the government of my hon. friend would have done, protesting against this diversion of water, and saying that we do not agree to a single inch of it going, and never have agreed. At the moment, as I have pointed out, we are working in conjunction with the solicitors who are protesting in the committee and in the courts against this diversion. Are not all the American cities situated along the Great Lakes- Buffalo, Detroit and so on-affected as well as Canada? Undoubtedly they must be. But I am not putting that up as a reason why we should let up one iota in our protests with respect to this matter.


Robert James Manion: Are not the American
municipalities also protesting?
Mr, STEWART (Argenteuil):	They are
fighting it to the last ditch, every one of them, and we have working with those gentlemen an engineer who knows more about this waterway, I think, than any other man in Canada, in the person of Mr. W. J. Stewart, who has more information on this subject, so far as I have been able to ascertain, than any other man that I know of. I maintain, Mr. Chairman, that the present government have not been recreant to their trust. My hon. friend points out that the water in the Great Lakes is going down. I do not admit that; I say that the present height of water is largely attributable to the diversion at Chicago. That is the position of the Canadian government and we are endeavouring to have that 
water restored to its natural channel. That is also the position that is taken by the solicitors who are fighting this case on behalf of all the interests surrounding the great city of Chicago. The Chicago people are putting up the best fight they can at every step in this controversy. This government is watching the case, and we have protested, and protested most vigorously, against this diversion of water, but beyond the point of courtesy we have not gone.
In answer to my hon. friend from New Westminster we have tabled copies of the correspondence passing between the twq governments. I most heartily concur in the view that our course should not be to protest before a committee of the senate or in the American courts, but to the American government itself. So, Mr. Chairman, I do not admit that this government has been recreant to its trust. So far as I am able to advise the government, I would advise the most strenuous action to be taken if it should appear that this thing was to continue.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much
longer will it be necessary for it to run before it is apparent that it is going to continue?


Charles A. Stewart: So far as I am aware, there has not been any further diversion during the last two years, but 10,000 cubic feet have been going for the last two years at least through that canal.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon, friend, of course, has an intimate knowledge of the subject which I have not. All I see is what the press says from time to time. But according to some articles I have seen in the press, apparently the city of Chicago is under the impression that it can increase the flow of water through the existing canal just as it pleases, and is doing it. That may be all wrong, but that is the impression, nevertheless, and we have to1 an increasing degree lowness of water. My hon. friend is quite light when he says we should get our water back. There is no dispute about that. But what are we doing to get it back? That is what we are trying to find out. My hon. friend says Canada's case is not for a committee or an American court. Canada's case stands on international rights and should be adjudicated according to international rights. Am I right in supposing -that every protest that could be taken by the government in connection with the preservation and enforcement of Canada's rights has been taken?


Charles A. Stewart: That might be a matter of opinion, but as my hon. friend well knows, Canada has never taken any other

Supply-Interior
position than that, either through this government or the former government. We do not admit their right to divert a single foot of water. As I said, Chicago has made tentative suggestions, not to the Canadian but to the United States government, to substitute dams to increase the height of water, but those works have never been recognized by the Canadian government, and I think should not be recognized by us, as a substitute for the water itself. What we want is the water. We do not want any substitution works to compensate for the diversion of that water. That is our position, and that is the position we propose to maintain.


William Findlay Maclean: Have you raised this question directly with the American government?


Charles A. Stewart: We have not raised the question. I doubt whether this is the proper moment, and whether we are not in a better position, at least, this is the advice I have to offer, to maintain our rights by demanding the return of the whole of that water, than to begin to negotiate about the matter. I think this government would be well advised, before agreeing to any reference of any character, to be very sure where it is going to lead them. We are standing firmly on the ground of demanding the return of that water. Undoubtedly this question could be a matter for reference to the International Joint Commission.


William Garland McQuarrie: What does the minister mean by the return of the water?


Charles A. Stewart: Shutting off the Chicago diversion entirely. We cannot expect that to be done all in a moment, but that is the position for us to take.


William Garland McQuarrie: You cannot get water
returned that has been taken down to the gulf of Mexico. The point, as I see it, is whether this government should do something more than simply fail to concur. The government, it seems to me, should go further than that. It should take active steps to protest directly to the American government against what is being done; otherwise, it may be held that this government has acquiesced.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, no, I
thought I had made that very clear.


William Garland McQuarrie: In answer to a question that was asked by the hon. member for South York the minister, as I understood him, said that the government had not taken any active steps at all.


Charles A. Stewart: Will this
satisfy my hon. friend? The position of this government has been outlined repeatedly, and our position is that we have not agreed to the diversion of a single foot of water. We have objected to the diversion strenuously. Some hon. gentlemen have said that it has been a sort of passive objection. It has not been of that character at all. All these suggestions that I have mentioned have come from the city of Chicago. The city is fighting American municipalities along the lakes, who are objecting just as strenuously as we are, and who, I take it, are being affected as adversely as our Canadian municipalities along the Great Lakes.


William Garland McQuarrie: To whom have our
objections been made?


Charles A. Stewart: We have
made objections through the British Embassy, to the American government. Copies of them are on file here, and my hon. friend can read them all. I want to make it clear that we have not at any time agreed to the diversion of a single foot of that water, but on the . other hand we have protested against it strongly. Of course, I do not expect to get back the water that has gone down to the gulf, but I do hope to put a barrier across the mouth of that canal and stop any more water going down.


Mr. EULER:: Have the protests been made directly to the government of the United States?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister tell us what answers the government of the United States have made to those protests?


Charles A. Stewart: The answers are all in the record.


Mr. BALDWIN:: The discussion on both sides of the House has been very unanimous. One would have thought that the municipalities along the lower Mississippi, in view of the great difficulties on the lower Mississippi river and the enormous cost of building dykes to prevent flooding great areas, would have been adverse to Chicago diverting a large amount of water from the Great Lakes. This is a very serious matter. The greatest inland waterway in the world seems to be in peril. The diversion of water affects lake Ontario, lake Erie, the St. Clair river, lake Huron, lake Superior and lake Michigan as well as the cities located on the shores of these great lakes. A number of American cities are alive to the danger involved as well as
Supply-Interior

ourselves-notably Buffalo, Cincinnati, Detroit Superior and other cities. These great communities are acting jointly in an effort to prevent this diversion by the Chicago sewerage system.
Then there arises the question of what shall be done in the case of power developed on the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes system. One of the worst features of the proposed joint hydraulic development on the St. Lawrence is the exportation of power to the United States. It is contended by some people in this country that if power is allowed to be exported to the United States that in the course of three or four decades a sort of vested interest will be established and any move to discontinue that exportation even in the interest of Canada herself will be met with strenuous opposition. Accordingly it is argued that Canada cannot consent to any such exportation because in the course of time it will be instrumental in building up towns and cities in the United States, whose industrial life would depend upon its continuance and they would fight to the utmost [DOT]to prevent a termination of the contract. That is one reason why I am emphatically opposed to the exportation of power developed from Canadian sources to the United States.
I am glad to see to-night such a unanimity of opinion on the question of the diversion of water for the Chicago drainage canal. It is well that the message should go out to Washington that the representatives of the Canadian people in parliament assembled are determined to safeguard, as far as they can, the maintenance of the level of the Great Lakes, and that they are desirous of preserving for Canada her share of the waterpower capable of being developed on the St. Lawrence. I am glad to add my voice to what appears to be the unanimous opinion of hon. gentlemen, regardless of party, on this question.


Edmund James Bristol: I wish to say to the minister that it appears to me from his statement that he is considering the situation from the point of view that certain states of the United States are to-day litigating with the city of Chicago to prevent what is going on. Now,
I wish to point out that our rights are not dependent on any legal proceedings between different states of the union and the city of Chicago; they are treaty rights which are not in any way connected with such litigation. That being the case we have no particular reason as a country to wait until the states m question litigate with the city of Chicago; we have no interest in such a matter as that

at all. Our duty as a country is to see that our treaty rights are maintained and that they should not be interfered with in a manner that is obviously causing damage to the people of this country from a power point of view and from the point of view of what is happening to Canadian harbours. That is the real matter at issue, not the awaiting of the result of litigation between certain American states and the city referred to. It seems to me, with all respect, that the government's right, under the treaty, is one that should be enforced in the strictest possible fashion, dealing directly with the United States government. Let the other parties to whom allusion has been made fight the matter out among themselves.


William Findlay Maclean: I should like to ask the minister whether he has had any consultations in regard to this question with the joint committee which has been appointed to consider the question of the St. Lawrence waterways and the canals?


Mr. GRAHAM:: The International committee has been called together for June 11, when this matter may be discussed by them. I am very much pleased that this discussion has taken place because, I think it is well for the United States to know how the Canadian parliament feels on the subject. I think that rather than resenting the raising of the question the minister will welcome this discussion. I am sure it will be pleasing to the people to know that the House of Commons of this country is standing up firmly for Canadian rights. The matter is one that concerns the governments of the two countries. I agree thoroughly with the hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Bristol)' that although there may be litigation awaiting decision, although a committee at Washington may be considering the question, our rights in this matter stand on much higher ground. The government of Canada, on behalf of the Canadian people, claim that Chicago has no right to continue the diversion of water, part of which belongs to the Dominion, without our consent. Now, our consent to that diversion has not been and will not be given. Such action as we are taking is being taken through the government as a whole and not by any particular minister. I can confidently assure the House that the government is taking every step which the situation calls for, not through any sort of side-door action, not keeping in mind any particular litigation; we are not going to pre-suppose that our rights stand on that

Supply-Interior
kind of basis. We are going to stand on the treaty rights which Canada possesses, and we propose to do everything possible to see that those rights are maintained.


Mr. CALDWELL:: I thoroughly agree with the remarks made by previous speakers on the subject of the diversion of water from the 'Great Lakes by the Chicago Drainage Commission. However, that is not what I rose to speak about at the present time. I wish to call the attention of the minister to a matter which I have already drawn to his notice this session. I think the matter has also been brought to the attention of the government on various other occasions. It is the question of the diversion of water from the St. John river to the Penobscot river by a dam at a place called Chamberlin lake on the Allagash river. The dam and the stream are in the United States, but the stream itself is tributary to the St. John river which is international boundary water for a short distance and then becomes Canadian.


Jacques Bureau: Are the dam and the
stream in the United States?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Yes. There is Chamberlin lake on the headwaters of the Allagash river, and the natural outlet of this river is into the St. John which is a Canadian river. There has been a dam built which prevents the flow of the water out of the natural channel. An artificial canal has been constructed to divert the water into the Penobscot river. This was done some years ago, and I believe no protest was made at the time. It was done by lumbermen, not under any international agreement whatever, but done by lumbermen who wanted to drive logs down the Penobscot river, in order to get an additional supply of water. However, at the present time the government of New Brunswick is making a survey of St. John river at a point near Grand Falls for the purpose of developing water power, and this diversion of water will be a very serious handicap to this enterprise. I called the attention of the minister to this matter some weeks ago. I do not know whether he has made any inquiry, if he has not I wish he would. I understand that some time after this dam had been built a protest was made . by the Canadian authorities, but there was a tentative agreement entered into when the protest was made by Canada that the dam would be allowed to stand as a wooden dam, not of a very permanent character, but that they would not be allowed to rebuild it; and that when the immediate necessity to drive lumber was over, 175



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
the dam should not be rebuilt, and the water should be allowed to return to its natural channel in due course. That time has arrived and we want that water now possibly worse than we ever did before or ever will again. It will be impossible to make improvements in the development of the water power at Grand Falls if this dam remains. The hon. member for Restigouche and Madawaska (Mr. Michaud) knows very much more about this than I do. He represented Victoria county previous to the year 1917. I think he took the matter up on previous occasions, and I would like him to give the minister the benefit of his views.
Mr. MICHAUD:: In 1842 a treaty was negotiated between the United States and Canada in connection with the American boundary between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine. This treaty is called the Ashburton treaty, and it was understood between the two countries at the time *the treaty was signed that, in order to develop industries, to encourage trade and commerce and to facilitate transportation between the two countries, the St. John river should be made an international boundary, and when we speak about the St. John river it includes its tributaries. The Chamberlin lake is at the head of the Allagash river. In order to divert the water from the Allagash river the lumbermen of the state of Maine went to the legislature at Augusta and obtained authority to dig a canal from the Chamberlin lake into the Penobscot river. In doing this they diverted the water from the Chamberlin lake, and prevented it running into the Allagash river, so that the whole of the water of that lake ran into the Penobscot river. The people of New Brunswick objected to the company being authorized by the state of Maine to dig a canal in order to divert that water. At first the state of Maine refused to allow this company to go to work, but about twenty or thirty years ago the same company obtained authority from the state of Maine, and began to dig their canal, and diverted that water. Since that time our province has protested against such diversion of water. During the first or second year I was in the House of Commons I brought this matter up, and it was understood that it would be taken up with the authorities of the state of Maine. A few years afterwards-I think about the year 1909 

the International joint waterways commission was appointed by the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Barnhill was on that commission, I think.



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Interior
Pius Michaud: Yes, and I believe the commission is still in existence. We Canadians have been endeavouring to persuade our American friends to remove that dam at the foot of Chamberlin lake, and to give us an opportunity to have all this water which should come to us. One of the great disadvantages caused by the diversion of this water is that in the spring of the year, or in the latter part of June especially, we are driving into the St. John river from the headquarters about 500 million feet of lumber. When the water runs down very rapidly all that lumber floating down may go to the shore and ground there. On one or two occasions we had to go to the state of Maine and beg them to close up the dams, and let the water from the Chamberlin lake run into the Allagash river and the St. John river. I say that they have monopolized entirely the waters of that river; and, judging from what my hon. friend has said, this is not confined to districts where I live, or the district where the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) lives, but it applies to all the waters for a distance of about two hundred miles. The St. John river is navigable from St. John to Fredericton, and we feel that we suffer a great loss by the diversion of this water, because it interferes with the transportation of lumber and affects our trade and commerce as far as Fredericton. I hope the Minister of the Interior will take the matter up. I think the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton brought this question up in the early part of the session. We are very much in earnest, and we feel we have been more or less abused by our American friends. If we let them go ahead in the future I do not know what will become of the country.


Mr. CHURCH:: I think the House is entitled to more information on this question. It was debated one afternoon some time ago, and at the request of the government it was laid over to be brought up again. I am not satisfied that the minister and the department are doing all that could be done in this matter. At the present time in many of the harbours on our Great Lakes, such as lake Erie, lake Ontario and in many ports on the St. Lawrence, the depth of water is from two to three feet lower than it was some years ago. The question involved is the construction of the boundary waterways treaty of 1909 made between Great Britain and the United States. There is no reference to Chicago in that treaty, and the word "Chicago" is not even mentioned in it from beginning to end. It is true the Chicago people had the consent of one party to the treaty-the United States-to

taking 4,167 cubic feet per second, but they have not the consent of the people of Canada or the people of Great Britain to the diversion of even that much water. The matter is now before the courts, the judges found against the diversion, and now an appeal has been taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, but in the meantime the damage done to Canadian interests amounts to $35,000,000 a year. That is the commercial value of the power which could be developed from the water which is being pilfered by the Chicago drainage people. Deputations from Canada are now going down to Washington, and it is rather humiliating to the people of this country to find that over the head of the British government, over the head of the Canadian government and over the head of the British Embassy at Washington, private deputations, who do not represent the people of Canada are appearing before the Rivers and Harbours committee of a foreign country. It is not in keeping with British institutions and traditions that deputations should be appointed and should appear before a committee of the congress of a foreign country on this particular question. It is all very well to make a protest. For 15 or 20 years protests have been made in regard to this matter. Every port on the Great Lakes is in jeopardy in this matter. The diversion is interfering with the interests of trade and commerce and the power interests of Ontario and Quebec are in jeopardy to-day as a result of the diversion.
Millions of dollars are being wasted every year. The time has come for something more vigorous than mere protests or sending some minor official of the minister to Washington to look after a matter like this. The time for protests has gone by; the time has come for action. What is the International Joint Commission for? Is it just to be a debating society? The boundary waterways treaty was discussed in this House in 1909 for days and weeks. Is it to be turned into a scrap of paper by the government of the United States? We are told that Canada is a nation. If Canada is a nation, let Canada be up and doing and put a stop to this pilfering and theft of water, contrary to the waterways treaty, by the government of the United States. It is all very well to talk, but the government of the United States is responsible for this Chicago diversion of water in excess of what is allowed by the treaty. It will be very serious for the public works at different ports along the rivers and lakes of this country if this question is to be made a political football. While the

Supply-Interior
Canadian government is not a party to the treaty, the government of Great Britain is a party and the government of the United States is a party. Not one word of the treaty mentions the Chicago drainage system at all. That came in as an afterthought. They are not authorized by the treaty to take any water.
Before the Rivers and Harbours committee in the United States they are criticising the government of Ontario for taking water from the	Chippawa canal. The
Ontario government are taking 12,000 cubic feet less than the treaty gives them. The treaty gives them about 32,000 cubic feet; they are exporting 12,000 cubic feet of that to the United States, and the United States which are allowed 24,000 cubic feet, have in addition 12,000 cubic feet of Canada's allotment of 32,000	cubic feet, so that the
United States are getting 36,000 cubic feet and Canada is getting only about 20,000 cubic feet. Therefore, that argument before the Rivers and Harbours committee is an utter fallacy. They have not a leg to stand on before the courts. Judge Landis rendered a decision granting an injunction against them and they went to the Supreme Court, of the United States. They are at present before the Supreme Court of the United States and the bill before congress is just a bill to kill time.
If we are a nation, let us, by all lawful means, put a stop to this thing, have it abandoned, and let the party responsible for it be brought to time by the government of Canada. If we are to believe what the government say about Canada being a nation, if Canada is a nation, let us see that our treaty, the treaty of Great Britain, which is to-day being turned into a scrap of paper by the people of Chicago, is respected. The Chicago authorities are preparing plans now for a diversion of 20,000 cubic feet a second, and they are seeking to have a canal going away down through the United States, following the Ohio and Mississippi rivers right down to the gulf of Mexico. That is where the water of the Great Lakes will wind up. What is the use of protesting to people like these? They do not respect the treaty; they do not intend to respect it; they have treated it as a scrap of paper. On the government of the day is the responsibility, because the provincial governments, the municipalities, the harbour boards of the country, the Dominion Marine Association, the navigation interests, right up to the head of the lakes, have all protested, but their protests might just as well not have been made. The time for talk has 175J
gone by and the time for action has come. The minister has not been as alert as he might have been in connection with this particular question. We want our treaty carried out to the letter. Instead of merely protesting, we should see to it that a treaty entered into solemnly by the United States government and the British government is lived up to The government of' the United States would not tolerate for one moment the city of Hamilton or Windsor or some other Canadian city attempting to divert fifteen, twenty or twenty-five thousand cubic feet of water from the Great Lakes. Canada has kept her part of the treaty to the letter. She has given the United States of her allotment 12,000 cubic feet of water for the development of electrical power in that country.
I do not say that the present minister is altogether responsible for the present situation, because he has been in the department for only a couple of years. Still, there should be some negotiation between the two governments. The International Joint Commission is empowered by the waterways treaty to make an investigation. What has become of this commission? Are the commissioners receiving their salaries now and are they able to take care of this question? Coming from a large city, greatly interested in this particular problem, and coming from the province of Ontario which is interested from a navigation and light and power standpoint, I wish again to register my protest against the way in which this matter is being dealt with by all concerned. It is the duty of the people of the United States to bring the Chicago drainage canal district to time. We are part of the British government. Let us conduct our protest through the British government, the Canadian government and the British Ambassador at Washington and not have a large number of deputations going to Washington and making protests. The protests should go through the proper channel and not through provincial and municipal channels.


William Findlay Maclean: I should
like to present the case from another point of view. Ontario is largely interested with the United States on the borders of the St. Lawrence river in the development of horsepower, and there is a great demand for that horse-power now. As Sir Adam Beck pointed out not long ago, in certain eastern Ontario towns there is a growing scarcity of power. That power is limited by the quantity of water, and if the water is diverted at Chicago, there will be less power at Cornwall island. Ontario has a real interest in that power and does not want to be deprived of a single
Supply-Interior

horse-power of it, but wishes to get her full share. Ontario is as much interested in this matter as other portions of the country, and the government ought to move rather rapidly in securing our rights in this matter.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I rather agree
with some of the last statements made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Church), that if this treaty is negotiated between Great Britain and the United States, the proper course for the govern-10 pm. mcnt would be to seek the assistance of Great Britain to see that the treaty is lived up to. But I think the hon. member for North Toronto used rather strong language when he suggested that we should repudiate a treaty that had been entered into solemnly between the two countries. Surely there is a better way of dealing with the matter. Surely some negotiations can be entered into whereby this matter can be adjusted without sacrificing the honour of the Canadian people and possibly the honour of the British Empire. I think we are using fairly strong language when we go that far.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prince has entirely misunderstood the tenor of the remarks which were made by the hon. gentleman from North Toronto (Mr. Church). He does not seek to have anything repudiated; all he desires is that sacred international obligations should be lived up to, and that the government should see to it that nothing is left undone to ensure their observance. I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham). It is a good thing that everybody ehould know where we all stand in connection with this matter. Canadian interests are really very much greater and very much more important than we have yet had pointed out to us, because the farthest western part of the prairies is to-day interested in the navigability of the water route to the St. Lawrence, and to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec the maintenance of the water level is absolutely vital. For example, what is to happen to the large interests in Ontario of the Hydro Electric Commission, and the large interests in Quebec of the power companies if their waters, which are international waters, can be withdrawn without reason and without excuse, contrary to all the provisions of international treaties made between civilized nations in this century? It is a very important question for them. Now, in view of the assurance given by the government I am going to take it for granted that they realize the seriousness of this matter.

At an earlier part of the discussion I asked for particulars of what protests had been lodged by the government with the United States government, and my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) said that a return had been brought down. I have not had an opportunity of seeing that return. I have no doubt it was my fault, but I frankly say I did not notice that the return had been tabled. Unless my hon. friend says something to the contrary, I am going to take it for granted that that return will give all the information which the government thinks ought to be disclosed at the present time.


Charles A. Stewart: I may supplement what I stated by saying that if we have an answer to the most recent despatch I will take an opportunity to place it along with the other papers.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to my hon. friend that instead of having a long discussion on this question, as promised by the government at the last adjournment, we might wind it all up under this vote. We could do that after we have had an opportunity of looking over the file before the item is finally passed, but the minister will see that until we have had such an opportunity we could not very well deal with the matter. It appears to me that this would be a shorter method of procedure.


Charles A. Stewart: I am perfectly willing to let the .item stand.


George Newcombe Gordon: Very well, this item
stands. We will take up the Lake of the Woods Control Board vote.
Amount required to meet expenses of Lake of the Woods Control Board, $10,000.


William Garland McQuarrie: Not dealing with this
particular subject, but with the whole item covered by vote 290, I should like to call the attention of the minister to the fact that on April 7 last, as will appear by reference to pages 1117 and 1118 of Hansard, he promised to bring down certain information as to the revenue of the Dominion timber and land offices in British Columbia, and also I should like to call his attention to a very inaccurate statement which he made on that occasion-I presume unintentionally and due to misinformation. I refer to the answer of the minister, which will be found on page 1117 of Hansard, as follows:
Mr. Stewart (Argenteuil): Answering the hon. member for New Westminster, for the fiscal year 1922-1923 the revenue collected at New Westminster was $34,041.16; Revelstoke, $47,140.07; Kamloops, $43,128.83.

Supply-Interior
I questioned the correctness of those figures at the time and I have since ascertained that they are absolutely inaccurate and misleading. I am informed that the revenue collected at the Dominion timber office-not the Dominion timber and land office-at New Westminster during the year ending March 31, 1923, which is the period corresponding to that mentioned by the minister, excluding the amount paid direct to the department, was not S34.041.16 at all, but, $175,378.44. I am also informed that for the next fiscal year ending March 31, 1924, the amount, excluding that paid direct to the department was $266834.80. I am further informed that the revenue received in the New Westminster office is more than that received in all the other offices in British Columbia put togther. Now, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me unfortunate that inaccurate information of this kind should be given.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend will permit-I do not just follow him. In the first instance he states that I was to bring down those figures; then he proceeds to quote from figures that^ are in Hansard.


William Garland McQuarrie: Possibly I should have gone into the subject a little more extensively. To set the minister right and bring it back to his memory perhaps I had better read the question I asked, which appears on page 1117:
Could the minister tell us the amount of revenue received from the timber office and the land office in New Westminster during the last two years, giving the figures for each year separately?
Then further on I asked for information as to all offices in British Columbia. The information my hon. friend gave is reported on page 1117 of Hansard and it is only for one year.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my
hon. friend is correct. I did not have the full information at that time, but I have it before me now.	.


William Garland McQuarrie: The figures were given as being for the fiscal year 1922-23. If the minister has the correct information now I should be glad to have it.


Charles A. Stewart: The figures
for 1922-23 are as follows:
Agency	Dominion Lands	Crown Timber	Mines	TotalKamloops..	.. $5,049 72 $ 30,329 55 $	379 93 $ 35,759 20	Revelstoke.	.. 1,722 08	43,860 43	364 20	45,946 71New West	A.D.L. ..	.. 3,161 46	33,906 23	37,067 69New West	C.T.A. ..	178,627 50	178,627 50Totals ..	.. $9,933 26 $252,817 48 $34,650 36 $297,401 10


William Garland McQuarrie: Can the minister give
the figures for 1921-22 also? The question was with regard to the figures for the last two years.


Charles A. Stewart: These are the figures for 1921-22:
Dominion Crown
Agency	Lands Timber Mines Total
Kamloops.:	..	$6,207	09	$	49,279	87	$ 743	55	$	56,230	51Revelstoke.	..	2,358	64	21,925	97	524	40	24,809	01
New West.
A.D.l	 2,243	63		 57,101	64	59,345	27
New West.
C.T.A	 153,000 41		 153,000 41
Totals ..	..$10,809 36 $224,206 25 $58,369 59 $293,385 20


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the minister that
information for 1923-24?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: The figure I have for
this year, crown timber alone, is $266,834.80, being an increase over the previous year of $91,456.36. Will the minister give us the particulars of this item of $10,000?


Charles A. Stewart: This is the
annual vote for the power board that was appointed in connection with the Lake of the Woods control. There is a very serious situation in connection with the administration of the Lake of the Woods. The provinces of Ontario and Manitoba, the United States, and the Dominion of Canada, are all interested. This amount is to carry on that work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
World Power Conference, $15,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: Will the minister give
the details of this item?


Charles A. Stewart: A world
power conference is being held in London this year at which practically all nations interested in power development will be represented. Canada is taking a rather prominent part in the discussions. We are sending Mr. Challies, who is in charge of power development in Canada; Mr. Murphy, who is electrical engineer in the Department of Railways and Canals, and Mr. Haanel. These three gentlemen will represent the federal government. A good proportion of this amount will be used to advertise the power possibilities of Canada. The Scandinavian countries have invited the engineers who will attend the conference to visit the power developments in their countries. Important papers will be read at the conference
Supply-Interior

and information of great value will be disseminated. Our hope is that we will advertise the tremendous power possibilities of Canada at this very important meeting, and we are asking for $15,000 to defray the expenses.


William Garland McQuarrie: The minister says that certain gentlemen are to be sent over from Canada, and has stated their qualifications, to all of which I take no exception. He says also that a part of the money is to be spent for advertising Canada's power possibilities. My question was for the purpose of getting this information more in detail. How much is to be spent for the expenses of the gentlemen referred to, how much for advertising, and in what manner will the money be spent for advertising?


Charles A. Stewart: It is a little difficult to estimate. We have definitely prepared some advertising which will cost us about $8,000. We will have to pay the expenses of the delegates, who will be allowed $15 a day while they are away. Their salaries, of course, will go on as usual, but their travelling expenses will come out of this vote. Beyond the $8,000 I have mentioned we have not definitely allocated the expenditure. Outside the expenses of the delegates, whatever portion of the vote is expended will be devoted to advertising -the power possibilities of Canada.


William Garland McQuarrie: In what way will it
be expended? What kind of advertising are we going to get?


Charles A. Stewart: We are preparing pamphlets on the subject of the possibilities of power development in Canada. The following papers are to be presented at the conference:	The Water-Powers of Canada, their nature, extent and administration, by Mr. Challies; The Fuel Resources of Canada, their utilization for production, and other purposes, by Mr. Haanel; The Generation of Hydro-Electric Power in Canada, by Mr. H. C. Acres, who by the way, is being sent by the Ontario government. Sir Adam Beck, Mr. Gaby and. Mr. Acres, the two engineers of the Hydro-Electric, are to take part in this conference, as well as representatives from Quebec, British Columbia, and every other province in Canada in which the people are interested in power development and utilization, but the money we are asking from parliament is to pay the expenses and to do the necessary advertising that is in the interests of Canada.
(Mr. C. A. Stewart]


William Garland McQuarrie: As I understood the
minister, $8,000 of this item was for advertising.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the only definite amount we have allocated. These pamphlets are being prepared for, distribution.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is to say, the
government is going to send out $8,000 worth of these pamphlets?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is a world conference. Is it an international conference, or a conference of different people throughout the world who are interested in power production?


Charles A. Stewart: Representatives are being sent by different governments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then it is an international conference. Will it be one of the functions of this international conference to deal at all with international waters and the rights of nations therein, or anything of that kind?


Charles A. Stewart: No, purely for power development.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then I take it, it is really a conference that is being brought together by a body with headquarters in London, which is sending out invitations to different governments to send people over who would be interested in that question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Grant to Western Canada Irrigation Association,
Henry Lumley Drayton: Is that the old item?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for the expenses connected with Canadian National Parks, historic sites, care of indigents in the parks, etc., and to re-imburse the provincial government for the salaries of police magistrates at Banff and at. Jasper, $1,000,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: What are the details
of this item?


Mr. WALLACE:: How much of this vote
is for marking historic sites, and whiih are being marked this year?

Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: The details are as follows:
Rocky Mountains	Park	 $335,000
Jasper Park	 239,000
Buffalo Park	 65,000
Yoho Park	 40,000
Glacier Park	 12,500
Waterton Lakes Park	 43,000
Revelstoke Park	 17,500
Elk Island Park	 20,000
Kootenay Park	 69,000
Highway Engineering	 31,000
Head Office	 48,000
Publicity	 35,000
Historic Sites	 25,000
Fort Anne Park	 3,000
St. Lawrence Islands	 3,500
Point Pelee Park	 3,500
Antelope Reserve	 2,500
Town Planning	 6,000
Vidal's Point	 1,500
. $1,000,000


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice a reduction in this item, which I have no doubt everybody will be very glad to see. What is the number of officials whose salaries are covered by this vote, and what number is being let out? While the deputies are looking that up, perhaps the minister-could tell me how much was spent last year.


Charles A. Stewart: 


John Alexander Wallace: What historic sites are
being marked this year, and what is the nature of the monuments that are being erected?


Charles A. Stewart: The monuments take the form of a boulder or cairn with a bronze tablet.


John Alexander Wallace: That does not answer my question as to what particular ones are being marked, and the nature of the various monuments. Surely there must be more than one.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. friend want the whole list of names?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not if the list
is a very long one, I do not want to take up too much time.


Charles A. Stewart: It is quite
long.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps my
hon. friend could let us have the list. I am interested in knowing just exactly how the machinery works. Generally it works quickly enough but frequently not with sufficient fairness. I wonder if my hon. friend has got a list of the names of the released appointees and the date of their appointment; also a list of the people still kept on and when they were appointed?


Charles A. Stewart: I have a
complete list but it is rather long. I should be very glad to turn it over to Hansard if that meets with my hon friend's views.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the date of
the appointment in each case is not given it will not be of very much use. How many men were dismissed?


Charles A. Stewart: I have no
knowledge of any being dismissed, but there are resignations.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How did they
resign and under what law? Did they resign under the Calder Act, or were they simply told, as in the case of another department, "Just sign here." How was it done? My hon. friend can get pointers in this connection from the genial Minister of Agriculture. He will inform him as to the way to get heads into the basket.


Charles A. Stewart: I have no knowledge of any heads being in the basket.


Henry Lumley Drayton: You see we
are getting a bit suspicious as to the observance of ordinary decency, fair play, and honesty in connection with these cases after the Torrance case. That is why I am asking my hon. friend for a frank explanation.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend has any particular individual in mind-


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not interested in any particular individual. I am only interested in the proper observance of the Civil Service Act. I do not know a name on the list; I simply ask for the general information.
Mr. STEWART Argenteuil): Well, I think I can assure my hon. friend that every resignation that has taken place occurred in the ordinary way and the treatment provided for in the Civil Service Act was accorded to each individual. I have no knowledge that any other course was taken.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is "no
question then of duress, it was not a case of "You sign there"?


Mr. EVANS:: Has any franchise been
granted to any company to construct dams in the Canadian National parks, and what is the policy of the government in such cases?


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend could not have been in the House when I replied to that question. I answered it on a former occasion, and again to-night in response to the hon. member for Vancouver
Supply-Interim

Centre (Mr. Stevens). I informed him that an application had been received on behalf of the Alberta government since the last discussion of the matter, but that the attitude of the department was just the same as when previously expressed.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I notice that this item reads in part "care of indigents in, the parks, etc." How much money has been spent on indigents in the parks and what is the meaning of "etc."?


Charles A. Stewart: That is owing to the fact that we .have no municipal government in our national parks. The federal government, as my hon. friend knows, leases the ground area upon, which buildings are erected and assumes more or less responsibility for muncipal organization, with-the single exception that at Banff there is a citizens' committee who are of very great assistance in the carrying on of municipal work there. Last year owing to the closing down of Brule mine, which is within the boundaries of Jasper park several families were left in serious distress. The Auditor General points out that we have no authority to relieve such cases of distress without making definite provision for that relief in the estimates. Provision has accordingly been made for taking care of cases of that character.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the House can take it for granted that this vote will only be used for indigents actually in the park?


Charles A. Stewart: Oh, absolutely.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not for the purpose of paying the bills of municipalities that hitherto have not been, recognized? Has this department any bills from municipalities at the present time with reference to indigents?


Charles A. Stewart: None that I am aware of.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was not so
much objecting to the department looking after these indigents. I was trying to find out how much money was being spent for the purpose, and my question was what the word "etc." meant?


Charles A. Stewart: In connection with Rocky Mountain park, we spent for this purpose in 1920-21, $75; in 1921-22, $150; in 1922-23, $632.30; and in 1923-24, up to 30th November last, $2,100.31; making a total expended, for that purpose since the first mentioned year of $2,957.61.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I asked my hon. friend what the estimate was and he has given me the actual figures of expenditure for which I am very much obliged to him. The figures indicate that under the sun of prosperity with which the present government are irradiating the country the expenditure on indigents in these parks has gained by something like 300 per cent, or a little better, in one year. What is the estimate under the new budget? Are you going to multiply that again by three hundred? How much is included in this vote for this purpose?


Charles A. Stewart: I may say that the greater part of the expenditure has evidently been incurred in connection with the -case of one man.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much is put in for this year?


Charles A. Stewart: Two thousand dollars.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is the
estimate.


Charles A. Stewart: We have not segregated absolutely $2,000, because we cannot tell absolutely what it will be.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I quite understand that. Where are the savings made in this money? Which park is going to have the smaller amount?


Charles A. Stewart: On account of the construction last year of an electric plant there was a large expenditure, and of course we have not that expenditure this year. There is not very much reduction elsewhere.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I want to know whether this is a reduction on account of the finishing of governmental activities. In due course these activities should disappear.


Charles A. Stewart: We increased from about $950,000 in park expenditure, I think, in 1921-22, to the amount of last year. That was occasioned largely by the installation of the power plant. We have had innumerable applications for improvements to parks, and pressure brought to bear upon us to spend money upon them, but I thought that if we judiciously spent a million dollars that would be all that we could afford to spend on the maintenance of our national parks. I am not for a moment saying that we could not spend more to very great advantage, but that is what we are trying to get along with.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will this bring us back to about 1921?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So that with
this reduction we get back to the basis of the expenditure for 1921.


Charles A. Stewart: No, not quite, but practically to that basis.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much higher are we?


Charles A. Stewart: Probably
$50,000. Of course I do not say that I am absolutely accurate in that. I am speaking from memory.
(Sir HENRY DRAYTON:	I thoroughly
agree with my hon. friend as to resisting requests for extensions of work there. We should not be spending any unnecessary money on parks in that district, but I wonder if the minister could not bring about some further economies. We have no real economy here at all. The extra work has been done, the power plant is finished, and we are only getting back to within $50,000 of the amount it cost to maintain the parks in 1921. Can we not get below that?


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the bulk of expenditure on park improvements has been made in Banff, or Rocky Mountain park. It is served entirely by the Canadian Pacific Railway. So far as further improvement is concerned in this park, I think we might very well rest, simply carrying on maintenance. My hon. friend will realize that with the expenditures for roads which have been made in the past, road maintenance now amounts to a considerable sum each year. In the Jasper park little or no improvement has been made. That park is on the line of our National Railways. I have thought it well that we should, in the interests of the National Railways, and to encourage tourist traffic, make further improvements in Jasper park, and that it would be a good investment in the interests of the National Railways as well as an encouragement to tourists to visit the northern part of the Rocky mountains. With that thought in mind, with judicious expenditure, I am convinced that if we do not exceed the amount I am asking this year, it will be money well spent and there will be an adequate return for the outlay.


Mr. HAMMELL:: The hon. member for West York (iSir Henry Drayton), appears to take great satisfaction in the reduction shown in this item. I for one think this is false economy. The expenditure of money in the development of tourist traffic in this country
3, 1924	2773
Supply-Interior
is a matter to which I think this government should give more serious consideration. Some time ago I pointed out to this House that in considering the sources of revenue from the natural resources of this country, the tourist traffic should rank third. I agree with the minister that probably enough money has been spent in the western parks of Canada. There are a great many other sections of this Dominion immensely suitable for the attraction of tourist traffic; and I feel that if some method were devised whereby we could co-ordinate the various tourist associations of this country under one head, say the Parks branch, and concentrate our efforts upon the development of the tourist traffic, it would be a good thing for Canada.


John Alexander Wallace: Has the minister under his hand a list of the historic sites which are marked this year?


Charles A. Stewart: Would it meet the request of the hon. member if we would prepare a list and either give it to Hansard or send it to him? It is sometimes difficult to segregate them here. We will be glad to file a list.


John Alexander Wallace: If the information is not right at hand I would not press it.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was the question with regard to the sites to be marked this year?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I brought to the attention of the department last year a site in the province of New Brunswick which I think should be marked. It is the site of the old fort at Meductic, on the St. John river. The landmarks are becoming pretty well obliterated, but it would be possible at the present time to locate this old fort. It was an important point in the early history of the province of New Brunswick I think, if I am not mistaken, that some officials in the department told me it was up for consideration last year. Has it been considered this year, or a little more than considered?


Charles A. Stewart: The superintendent tells me that it will be under consideration by the board to-morrow.


Mr. SHAW:: Is the electric lighting plant that the minister referred to completed and in operation, and if so, what is the total cost of that plant to the department?


William Garland McQuarrie: I notice a part of this item is to reimburse the provincial government for salaries of police magistrates at Banff and Jasper. Will the minister explain that item.
Supply-Interior


Charles A. Stewart: We have
been having some difficulty in connection with the administration of law and order in the park. We have, as you know, the Mounted Police looking after the park; we have many tourists there and frequently have rather difficult cases to be taken care of in a magisterial way. Formerly, under the act, the magistrate at Banff was appointed by this government. We have now asked the provincial governments to appoint the magistrates and we pay them.


William Garland McQuarrie: How much under this item?


Charles A. Stewart: $2,600 to the magistrate at Banff and $2,200 to the magistrate at Jasper.


William Garland McQuarrie: The parks are not
within any municipality?


Mr STEWART (Argenteuil):: No.


William Garland McQuarrie: I presume the magistrates are required for the purpose of enforcing the regulations in the park?


Charles A. Stewart: For all purposes, yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: I suppose the cases which come before the magistrates are mainly breaches of the regulations in the park?


Charles A. Stewart: That is part of their duties, but all infractions of law that are within their jurisdiction come before them.


William Garland McQuarrie: The police themselves,
I presume, would not be able to provide machinery for that kind of thing?


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, will agree with me, that it is hardly fair to have the body adjudicating that lays the charge.


William Garland McQuarrie: I was thinking about what happens in New Westminster in connection with another department, Indian Affaire, which comes under the jurisdiction of the minister. I have in mind a difficulty which has arisen there owing to a conflict of jurisdiction between the police magistrate and the Indian agent, and the objection that has been made to the minister by reason of the fact that the Indian agent at New Westminster insists on trying cases for breaches of the Indian Act when there is in the city a police magistrate before whom these cases should be heard.


George Newcombe Gordon: The hon. member is
out of order in the debate which he is entering on now.


William Garland McQuarrie: Speaking to the
point of order, I was asking the minister whether it would not be possible for someone in his department or in the department of the police to take care of these prosecutions, and the minister rather laughed at that proposal-


Charles A. Stewart: No.
, Mr. McQUARRIE:-and suggested that that would be rather unfair. I am calling attention to something that has actually taken place in another department under the jurisdiction of the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it
rather not the case in which disputes arise, all or practically all the Indian agents have magisterial jurisdiction, are given magisterial jurisdiction? Is it not a fact that most of the litigations that come before them are disputes between the Indians themselves rather than disputes between the agent and the Indian?


William Garland McQuarrie: What I am speaking
about now-and I prefaced my remarks by stating it-is that the matters that the Indian agent insists on trying are cases of breaches of the Indian Act.


Mr. SI  EWART@Argenteuil: By whom?


William Garland McQuarrie: Laid by the Indian
agent.


Charles A. Stewart: Against
whom?


William Garland McQuarrie: Against the Indians
or against others who have sold liquor to Indians that kind of cases-all in connection with the administration of the Indian department, the office of the Indian agent there. To make myself perfect-
11 p.m. ly clear, I do not believe in that kind of thing at all. As I have informed the minister by 'Correspondence, I do not believe that kind of thing should be permitted. I think the minister should see to it that the Indian agent does not interfere in that way. It is provided by the provincial statute that where there is a police magistrate, no other justice of the peace or other officer of that kind can hear cases. That is so in regard to the province, and I think the Dominion should do the same thing.


Jacques Bureau: Would that not require an amendment to the law?


William Garland McQuarrie: Not at all. The magistrate is there. The prosecutions may and should be brought before the magistrate.

Supply-Interior


Jacques Bureau: Does the law say so?


William Garland McQuarrie: That is what he is
there for and paid for.


Jacques Bureau: The minister states that
the Indian, agent has the jurisdiction of a magistrate to try those cases. Has he or has he not? If he has, he can try them. If there is any reason why exception should be taken to' his jurisdiction, it is up to the man who is brought before him to take that exception. If my hon. friend objects to the Indian agent having the powers of a magistrate, the question would be one of amending the law so as to take those powers away from him.


Mr McQUARRIE:: That is not necessary
at all.


George Newcombe Gordon: I rule this debate out
of order. It is on the Indian Act and has nothing whatever to do with this item.


Thomas Langton Church: What is the minister doing in connection with historic sites in the Niagara district? Many of the battlefields of the war of 1812, 1813 and 1814 are to-day in the state in which they were nearly a hundred years ago, and while it is true the minister and some of his officials have visited the sites and erected a few tablets, the battlefields are lying there untouched.


Charles A. Stewart: Not guilty.


Thomas Langton Church: When you enter the mouth of the Niagara, you see Fort Mississagua. You would think it was a fort in Belgium after the Germans had passed through. The roof has all fallen in. Compared with the large appropriation which the American people give for this particular object, this is a very small vote for the work the department has undertaken as regards Canada. I urge the minister to take more definite action in this matter. Chippewa was the bloodiest battle of the war of 1812-14. If you go through that village today you will find1 that the battlefield is not marked out. At Lundy's Lane the government erected a small monument. But all these historic spots in the Niagara district should be no longer neglected by the government. I would urge upon the minister that he might well seek the co-operation of the Niagara Victoria Park Commission, which I am sure would do the work for the government at cost prices of preserving and reconstructing these ruins. We might well follow the example of our neighbours, for in the Cumberland valley every legislature is taking steps to erect monuments to mark the battles of the Civil War. The Battlefields
Commission down in Quebec has done excellent work and is a model for Canada and the Empire. Not only this government but the government ahead of it should have done something to mark these historic spots. I would strongly urge the minister not to be stingy in this respect but to go over the Niagara district and spend a few hundred dollars a year to mark the old battlefields and preserve the ruined forts.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: The minister said, and quite correctly, that these national parks have no form of local self-government, complete control being vested in the Parks branch at Ottawa. The vast area of our national parks lies contiguous to the Rocky mountains, out of a total of ten thousand square miles less than ten square miles being found in any other part of the Dominion. I think it is important that the largest possible measure of local self-government should be given to the communities settled within the .park areas of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan. I wonder what the members of this House would think if they were forced to live in a district where the regulations, even those of the most minor character, were all framed in Ottawa? For instance, there is a regulation as to the length of string which you must have on a dog if you are taking it around the town of Banff! The residents and tourists find such regulations very irritating. I think it would be a matter of convenience and result in considerable economy if the government W'ould delegate every possible municipal function to a responsible local administration. By " responsible " I mean an administration elected by the people of the locality. Let these people govern themselves to the furthest possible limit, reserving to the park administration the power of disallowance of any municipal regulations which are found not to be in conformity with the general park policy. Instead of having a few clerks in Ottawa engaged in drafting these regulations, many of them unfamiliar with local conditions, you would then find the residents, who are tremendously interested not only in their own welfare but in the park development, carrying into effect policies wdiich in the long run would make for the best development of our national parks.
I speak of this matter with some knowledge, for I have had occasion to talk with a great many people, tourists included, who happened to come to Banff National park, and I have heard1 some of them express the opinion that certain minor regulations-all drafted in Ottawa-are of such an irritating
Supply-Interior

and irksome character that they do not intend to revisit the park, as when on a holiday 'hey do not want to be bothered with policemen and petty regulations. It is true there is an advisory council at Banff, as mentioned by the minister, but this council is purely advisory. This policy was inaugurated by the preceding administration, and I think this administration might well develop it and give the people those rights of local selfgovernment which they should enjoy as British subjects, and which I have no doubt, would be exercised to the best interests not only of themselves but of the parks in general. I simply make this suggestion because I am hopeful that the minister knowing the local conditions will do something along this line. I am sure it would be a profitable and wise course to take and result in true economy.


Charles A. Stewart: This is
rather a vexed problem to solve, for you cannot very well give municipal jurisdiction within the boundaries of a park and still have a park. One of the complaints my hon. friend has lodged has been of long-standing- the regulation against dogs running at large. My hon. friend well knows, because he is at Banff very frequently, that one of the pleasantest sights in the vicinity of the town, sometimes in the streets, is young deer and mountain sheep wandering about, so tame that tourists can go amongst them. If the park is to be made attractive in this way we must have regulations to prevent dogs running at large. There are always two sides to a question, and I have some sympathy with the residents. On the other hand, I have had occasion to look into the matter carefully, and the statement that the regulations are drawn up by clerks in the head office here who know nothing about local conditions is scarcely fair. The regulations are the result of advice coming from the officials who are directly in charge at Banff.
I am not going to deny that an official having unlimited authority may sometimes exceed it, hence some difficulties arise, but I would point out to my hon. friend that it is my desire, as I think it is the desire of the superintendent and the chief officials of the parks administration, that the citizens shall be given the fullest possible privileges, but there undoubtedly must be restrictions. When this matter first came to my attention it was because of two young deer which were wandering amongst the cottages at Banff being chased and killed by dogs. Clearly we cannot permit a recurrence of this trouble.
I have, had complaints from tourists about

the poor dogs being tied up, but if they are to be allowed to run at large we certainly cannot have deer in the vicinity of Banff. I wish to impress upon the committee our desire to meet every reasonable and legitimate request of the citizens of the community. I think in the main we have been doing that. Of course there may be regulations that some people do not like, but we will try to meet the objections as far as we can.


Thomas Langton Church: Will the minister let me
know what he is going to do about the Niagara district?


Charles A. Stewart: I am informed that the Historic Sites Board are working in conjunction with the Park Commission in the Niagara peninsula. It would take a considerable amount of money to repaid such sites as my hon. friend mentions. We are expending annually a fair amount on this work and are gradually accomplishing something in the marking of the more important sites. I am informed that the complaint my hon. friend makes is being attended to as rapidly as finances will permit.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: In answer to the suggestion
made by the minister I gave an illustration to indicate the difficulties that arise. The minister suggests that allowing these dogs to run loose results in the deer being chased off the streets. I would remind him that years ago when there were dogs running loose there were also deer going through the streets. The minister has presented one side of the picture, but there are some people in Banff who suggest-I do not know what truth there may be in the statement-that these deer were not killed by dogs at all. It is also suggested that on account of the deer being allowed to run loose to such a great extent the lives of children are often imperilled, and cases are actually cited to illustrate these facts. However, that is not the primary point. The point I want to get at is the question of the distribution of the power so far as municipal affairs are concerned. I think the department would be well advised to give the people in those communities the fullest powers of local self-government that can be given. These people are primarily interested in making their towns attractive to tourists, and if it is desirable to have animals go into the city, why, they are going to do everything possible to have them there. I think that could be very safely done by the government retaining the power of veto, or disallowance, if you want to call it that. This would encourage the local residents to take a greater interest in the affairs of their community and besides it would

Supply-Interior
relieve the department of this long distance method of government. Instead of people having to come to governments-to come say from Banff to Ottawa-governments nowadays should come to the people just a little bit more. Will the minister give me the figures I asked him for with regard to the construction of the lighting plant?


Charles A. Stewart: $213,791.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Is that above the original
estimate?


Charles A. Stewart: It is about
the amount of the estimated cost.


Mr. GOULD:: Last year when a similar
item was before the committee I asked the minister questions in connection with the Moose Mountain Forest Reserve and the pleasure resort at that place. The minister very graciously replied that the people of southern Saskatchewan deserved a playground and that he was going to do something for them. Well, the whole summer passed, and I am sorry to be obliged to announce that nothing whatever was done at that resort in the Moose mountain country. I see that there is a reduction of $270,000 odd this year and I have wondered if the minister has forgotten altogether about that.


Charles A. Stewart: It does not
come under this item. It has to do with forestry.


Oliver Robert Gould: The area is divided into
three parts. We have the Indian reservation; back in 1911 we had an area set aside for the purposes of a buffalo park; we have the lakes resort and the timber preserve. The whole are combined on the Moose Mountain Forest Reserve. I am speaking more particularly from the point of view of the pleasure resort. I would like to know in any case what the prospects are this year.


Charles A. Stewart: 
Oliver Robert Gould: Two years ago I asked
questions concerning that, and I think it was stated that approximately $2,000 per year came to the Dominion government from fishing permits, timber permits and various other activities on that reservation. I wish to remind the minister also that we are paying an
annual federal tax of approximately $1,450,000, so I think I am only asking for my right in asking for what we have persistently tried to get since 1909-10. I bring the question up each year, and I may say that my people are not satisfied with the treatment they are receiving at the hands of the Dominion government in this connection. That same forest, preserve is filled with game: We have many moose, elk, jumping deer and various other animals, and when a farmer is unfortunate enough to have his grain left in the stook it is entirely eaten by these animals. I know he would have recourse under the municipal law if it were something his neighbour were responsible for, and I think I am quite right in at least mildly pressing upon the minister the justice of my request.


Charles A. Stewart: I was not
objecting to the request; I hope my hon. friend did not take that from my attitude. I was simply pointing out to him that an expenditure of this kind would have to be taken out of the forest moneys. I now have full information before me in respect to the requirements of that locality, and while I cannot perhaps, fully meet his request we propose doing something to assist ourselves, and that will materially assist the people who go in to that particular lake.


William Garland McQuarrie: How much of this item is for historic sites?


Charles A. Stewart: 


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much longer does the minister want the committee to discuss this item? I do not like to see him break the rule of his leader, who told us the House would always be closed at eleven o'clock. We sat last night until one. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would like to put this item through and then adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Graham, the House adjourned fet 11.27 p.m.
Wednesday, June 4, 1924