1926-03-24

PRINTING-JOINT COMMITTEE

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (for the Prime Minister) moved:: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the select standing committee on Printing, namely, Messrs: Baldwin, Charters, Donaghy, Edwards (Waterloo South), Embury, Esling, Evans, Hannesson, Hocken, Hubbs, Lapierre, McGibbon, McIntosh, Malcolm, Marcil, Prevost, Quinn, Raymond, Rinfret, St. Pere, Speakman, Steedsman, White (Mount Royal), will act as members on the part of this House on the said joint committee on the Printing of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Questions

Ernest Lapointe: That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House has appointed Messrs: Baker, Bird, Bourassa, Cahan, Carmichael, Deslauriers, Fish, Forke, Garland (Carleton), Hatfield, King (Prince Albert), McIntosh, Meighen, Neill, Pouliot, Prevost, Quinn, Rinfret, Stilling, Thompson, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker, in the direction of the Library of Parliament so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a committee of both Houses on the Library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ernest Lapointe: That Messrs: Black (Yukon), Carmichael, Clark, Fiset (Sir Eugene), Howden, Kay, Ryckman, Stork, and Wilson (Wentworth) be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in the direction of the restaurant, an f*r the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant, and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Will any safeguarding of industry legislation be introduced this session providing for direct aid to the native coal industry by bounties, subsidies or other subventions to assist its development, and placing an embargo on United States coal and in favour of a
Name of Steamer
T. J. Drummond .. .
J. A. Mckee	
Canadian Pathfinder Canadian Engineer ..
Sheba	
Canadian Miner .. .. Canadian Sealer .. .. Canadian Logger .. . Canadian Adventurer Canadian Sailor .. .. Canadian Signaller .. Canadian Sower .. .. Canadian Trader .. . Canadian Warrior .. Canadian Harvester .
(x) Canadian Settler
(x) The purchaser found it impossible to meet his payments on the Canadian Settler so the Canadian Government Merchant Marine, Limited took re-possession of the ship on January 31st, 1925.
policy for coal mined and coked under the British flag, either from Alberta, the Maritime provinces, or Wales or other British provinces?
2.	What has the government done to carry out the terms of coal resolutions accepted by the government (1922-1925) for a national coal policy for Canada, and why has such a policy not been acted on, and adequate legislation introduced to give effect to it as promised?


Hon. Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Under consideration.
2.	The duty on slack coal has been increased from 14 cents to 50 cents per ton.
A subvention on Nova Scotia coal was provided to assist in regaining markets lost during the war.
The Board of Railway Commissioners has been instructed to determine the cost of carrying coal from both the coal fields of the east and west to central Canada.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT MERCHANT MARINE -SALE OF SHIPS
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	What ships of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine or otherwise owned by the government of Canada have been sold within the past three years?
2.	What tonnage did these ships which were sold possess ?
3.	To whom were such sales made?
4.	Did Mr. N. M. Patterson of Fort William purchase some of these ships? If so, which ones and what tonnage?
5.	What prices did Mr. Patterson pay for these ships?
6.	Is this Mr. N. M. Patterson the same N. M. Patterson who is president of the Liberal Association of Fort William, Ontario?


Hon. Mr. DUNNING:: 1,	2, 3 and 4.
Tenders were invited through the medium of extensive advertising in the press and by correspondence with brokers and other likely interested parties in various parts of the world, the sale of the above steamers being
Deadweight	To Whom Sold
T onnage
..	3,501	N.	M. Paterson & Co., Ltd., Fort William,	Ont...	3,575	N.	M. Paterson & Co., Ltd., Fort William,	Ont...	3,640	N.	M. Paterson & Co., Ltd., Fort William,	Ont...	3,679	N.	M. Paterson & Co., Ltd., Fort William,	Ont...	3,400 The Manor Line, Ltd., London, Eng... 2,778	Wm. Hansen, Bergen, Norway... 2,777	Wm. Hansen, Bergen, Norway...	3,839 Sir Thomas Wilson, Belfast, Ireland...	3,408	James	Playfair,	Esq.,	Midland,	Ont...	3,357	James	Playfair,	Esq.,	Midland,	Ont...	3,975	James	Playfair,	Esq.,	Midland,	Ont...	3,406	James	Playfair,	Esq.,	Midland,	Ont., ..	3,341	James	Playfair,	Esq.,	Midland,	Ont...	3,995	James	Playfair,	Esq.,	Midland,	Ont.
. .. 4,000 Canada Atlantic Transit Co., Toronto, Ont.
(Subsidiary to Canadian National Railways) .. 4,918 Capt. Peter Graham, New Glasgow, N.S.
Questions

consummated after negotiations with the purchasers at prices in line with world market prices for tonnage of the type sold.
5.	T. J. Drummond, $110,000; J. A. Mckee, $110,000; Canadian Pathfinder, $50,000; Canadian Engineer, $50,000.
6.	No information.


MEDICAL MEN AND DENTISTS IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What are the names of medical men and dentists in employ of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at Halifax; (a) Camp Hill hospital; (b) Cogswell Street hospital; (c) pension board?
2.	What are the names of medical men in employ of dockyard?
3.	What are the names of medical men in employ of immigration service?
4.	What are the names of medical men in employ of quarantine service?
5.	What are the respective salaries /paid each of these medical men?
6.	Which are full time and which are part time employees ?
7.	Are full time men permitted to engage in private practice in competition with other men in the city of Halifax?
8.	If not, have steps been taken, and if so, what steps, to prevent such practices?
9.	Are any of the medical men, whose names have been mentioned, under the operation of the Civil Service Act, if so, which ones, and when did this act become operable in relation to these men?
10.	What is the intention of the government in regard to the future of Camp Hill hospital?


Ernest Lapointe: Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment:
1.	Dr. M. A. MacAulay, Unit Medical Director, full time, $4,800; Dr. E. K. Mac-Lennan, Assistant Unit Medical Director and Pension Examiner, full time, $4,000; Dr. W. P. MacKasey, Pension Examiner, full time, $4,000; Dr. M. J. Carney, Specialist, diseases of the chest, part time, $2,400; Dr. S. J. McLennan, Consultant, eye, ear, nose and throat, part time, $2,100; Dr. Wilfrid A. Curry, Orthopaedic specialist, part time, $1,200; Dr. 0. G. Donovan, Medical Superintendent, Camp Hill hospital, full time, $4,000; Dr. G. B. Kennedy, Mediical officer, Camp Hill hospital, full time, $3,300; Dr. K. A. MacKenzie, Specialist, internal medicine, Gamp Hill hospital, part time, $2,400; Dr. E. V. Hogan, Surgeon, Camp Hill hospital, part time, $2,400; Dr. W. H. Eager, X-ray specialist, Camp Hill hospital, part time. $2,100; Dr. G. W. Grant, Neurologist, Camp Hill hospital, part time, $1,800; Dr. V. M. MacKay, Pathologist, part time, $1,800; Dr. H. E. Mann, Unit dental officer, full time, $3,600.
2,	3 and 4. No information.
5 and 6. Answered1 by No. 1.

7.	They are ndt permitted to engage in private practice during the prescribed hours of duty with the department. The department does not know what activities they engage in outside their regular hours of duty nor does it presume to control them.
8.	Answered by No. 7.
9.	No.
10.	Camp Hill hospital will be continued in operation as 'long as it is required for the treatment of men suffering from conditions related to war service.
Department of Health:
1.	No information.
2.	None.
3.	Dr. Henry Gouthro; Drs. H. Maclaren, A. M. Bell and J. M. Robertson who are attached to the port of Quebec in summer are transferred to Halifax for the winter season.
4.	Dr. J. V. Graham.
5.	Dr. Henry Gouthro, $2,760; Dr. H. Mae-Laren, $2,880; Dr. A. McK. Bell, $2,760; Dr. J. M. Robertson, $2,640; Dr. J. V. Graham, $2,880.
6.	All full time employees.
7.	No.
8.	The department is not aware of any of the medical officers at Halifax engaging in private practice.
9.	The -medical men mentioned have always been under the Civil Service Act.
10.	No information.


SIX NATIONS INDIAN DELEGATION
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Did a delegation from the Six Nations Indians at Brantford attend the good roads convention at Toronto in 1925?
2.	If so, who were they?
3.	How much did each receive for expenses?
4.	Was this money paid out of the funds of the band?
Hon. Mr. STEliVART (Edmonton):
1. Yes.
2 Lieut.-Col. C. E. Morgan, superintendent. Hilton Hill, chief councillor of Six Nations council.
3.	Total expenses of $54.40 paid to Lieut.-Col. Morgan.
4,	No.


ELECTRIC MACHINERY COMPANY, LIMITED
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	Has the charter of the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, with head offices at Montreal, province of Quebec, been cancelled?
2.	If so, at whose request, and for what reason?
3.	To whom, if anybody, has the name of the company known as the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, been given?

Unopposed Motions for Papers


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	The charter of the Electric Machinery Company, Limited, with head office at Montreal, has not been cancelled. The name of this company has been changed to H. G. Stewart Machinery Company, Limited.
2.	Objections to the name Electric Machinery Company, Limited, were lodged in the Department of the Secretary of State by the Electrical Machinery Company, a partnership carrying on business at the city of Toronto, and by the Canadian Minneapolis Electric Company, Limited, a company incorporated under the provisions of the Dominion Companies Act. The change of name was made by supplementary letters patent, issued under the provisions of section 21 of the Companies Act.
3.	The name of the Canadian Minneapolis Electric Company, Limited, the company above referred to, was changed to that of Eiectric Machinery Company, Limited.


WAR REPARATIONS
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Who has been appointed commissioner with respect to German war claims since the death of Hon. William Pugslev ?
2.	What is the date of his appointment and what is the rate of his compensation?
3.	How much has been paid on account (a) for compensation; (b) for expenses?
4.	How many claims have been decided by the commissioner?
5.	How many have been under review?
6.	In what order are claims paid?
7.	What is the total amount paid to date?
8.	To whom, and in what amounts, have such payments been made, and what are the dates of each payment ?


Ernest Lapointe: 1 James Friel, K.C., of Moncton, N.B.
2.	19th June, 1925. $750 per month and $15 per diem whilst absent from the city of Moncton.
3.	(a) $5,758.06. (b) $3,378.42.
4.	No information.
5.	No information.
6.	Question of order has not been considered. See answer to question 7.
7.	No payments have been made.
8 See answer to question 7.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Is the Canadian National Railway operating the Moncton and Buctouche railway?
2.	If so, under what arrangements?
3.	If under a leasing arrangement what are the terms of the lease, and to whom is the rent payable?
4.	Is this railway one of the branch lines in New Brunswick agreed to be purchased by the government?
5. If so, what are the terms of the arrangement?
6. If so, why has the purchase price not been paid and title taken to the railway?
7.	Is the government aware that numerous claims against this railway have been filed on behalf of creditors arising out of the operation of this line of railway by the owners?
8.	Is it the intention of the government to see that these claims are liquidated at or before the purchase price is paid to the foreign owners of this road?
9.	Why has the government not taken steps to see that these claims are properly liquidated out of the purchase price and the purchase concluded?
10.	Have representations been made the government
or any department thereof looking to the liquidation and payment of said claims?	[DOT]
11.	If so, by whom and what are the names of each claimant and the respective amounts of each claim?
12.	Will the government undertake to see that these claimants are protected against loss by ordering the owners to liquidate such claims before payment of the purchase price or by other appropriate action?


Charles Avery Dunning: I would ask the hon. member to allow this question to stand as an order for return. It is too involved to be dealt with as it stands.


Mr. HANSON:: I prefer to have it answered as a question. I do not think it is involved to anything like the extent the minister suggests. I am familiar with the matter and. I should like to have it on public record in the form of question and answer. However, I am willing to let it stand for answer at some other time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands as order for return under rule 37.
UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS ROUYN RAILWAY Mr. O'NEILL:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and reports relative to the construction, financing or operation of the Rouyn railway passing between the government or any department or official thereof and:
1.	The management of the Canadian National Railways or any officer or official thereof;
2.	The government of the province of Quebec or any department or official thereof;
3.	The Rouyn Railway Company or any officer or official thereof;
4.	Messrs. Dillon, Read and Company or any official thereof;
5.	The American Exchange Securities Corporation or any official thereof;
6.	The Noranda Mines Limited, or any official thereof.


IMMIGRATION PERMITS 1922-25
Mr. MORAND:: For a return giving a statement of all permits issued by the Minister of Immigration, under section 4 of the Immigration Act, showing the names of all persons permitted to enter Canada under the said section during the years 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925; the occupations and former residences of all such persons; the dates and places of entry into Canada; the duration of their stay in Canada as allowed by such permits and whether still in Canada; and if so, their present places of residence; and if not now in Canada, the dates and places when and where they left Canada.
Private Bills Committee


POSTMISTRESS AT RIGAUD
Mr. DOUCET:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the Post Office Department and others, in connection with the appointment of Mrs. Georges Seguin, as postmistress at Rigaud, county of Vaudreuil-Soulanges, Quebec.


POSTMASTER AT CARLETON, QUE.
Alexandre Joseph Doucet: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents, exchanged between the Postmaster General, the Quebec superintendent's office and others re complaint made against Mr. Francis L. Cullen, postmaster at Carleton, Bona venture county, Quebec, together with a copy of the inquiry held.


MR. H. BOULAY
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Hanson (for Mr. Culligan):
For a copy of any letter or letters written by Mr. H. Boulay, of Sayabec, county of Matane, to the Minister of Militia and Defence at Ottawa, on January 18,	1918, in connection with enlistments under the
Military Service Act.
Ernest Lapointe: Is the hon. gentleman
here?


Richard Burpee Hanson: He had to go away.


Hewitt Bostock: I have the amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: Is the subject matter
given ?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes; "in connection with enlistments under the Military Service Act."
Motion as amended agreed to.


EASTER ADJOURNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the Order for Notices of Motions:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN:: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed with this order, with the consent of the House-otherwise I have no right-might I.ask if the government could make any statement as to what position they intend to assume toward the Easter adjournment motion?


Ernest Lapointe: I regret the Prime Minister is not here to answer my right hon. friend. I understand that the motion will be allowed to stand, and that if there is no agreement as to the extended length of the adjournment, the motion will be amended to shorten the period. Of course, the motion will be called in the regular way to-morrow under Government Notices of Motion.


PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE
Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, with the general consent of the

House I would ask that we revert to routine proceedings in order that I may present the first report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.


Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the House.
Mr. PARENT presented the first report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills as follows:
Representations having been made to your committee by parliamentary agents and others, on behalf of a number of persons who are desirous of initiating private bill legislation during the present session of parliament, but are unable to do so by reason of the expiration of the time for receiving petitions for private bills, as well as for the filing of private bills, that the calling of the session at least a month earlier than usual, and other special circumstances prevailing during the session, have tended to prevent private bill promoters from bringing forward their measures until the present time; and your committee having been advised that some thirty-five or forty such petitions may yet be presented, have agreed, under the circumstances, to recommend that the time for receiving petitions for private bills, which expired on February 18 last, be renewed until Wednesday, April 14 next, and that that portion of the 89th rule which limits the time for filing private bills be suspended for the present session.
All which is respectfully submitted.
He said:	I presume that under the circumstances an explanation is necessary. The chairman of the committee has received a good many representations from parliamentary agents and others to the effect that owing to the political uncertainty prevailing at the opening of the session those who wished to present petitions for private bills refrained from doing so, as had the session been of short duration they would have lost their deposits. Consequently no petitions were presented. A number of persons are now desirous of initiating private bill legislation, and in view of the peculiar circumstances representations have been made to the committee that the time limit under rule 89 should be suspended. This morning the committee unanimously recommended that this be done. Therefore if there is no objection I will move the adoption of the report.


Sir HENRY DR  AYTON@: : Do they know now what will happen?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Georges Parent: I beg to move:
That in accordance with the recommendations contained in the first report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the time for receiving petitions for private bills be renewed until Wednesday April 14 next, and that that portion of rule 89 which limits the time for filing private bills be suspended for the present session.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Mr. Speaker, I
am inclined to think we should give effect to the motion. I do not think we are in a

Chicago Drainage Canal
position to delay many of these gentlemen who want to have legislation brought forward, after having been misled by the perambulations of this government. They are in the same position in that regard as the country at large, and I think they should be helped.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to oppose the motion at the moment, but I would prefer that it stand until I have had an opportunity of consulting the Department of Justice as to how it will affect the revenue.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands.
Motion stands.


CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, in order to preserve the levels of the Great Lakes and conserve the money expended on canals and harbour improvements on the Great Lakes by the government of Canada, immediate and drastic action should be taken by the government, through the British government, to enforce the Boundary Waterways Treaty (1909) and to forthwith collect damages from the United States foi breaches of the treaty iby the Chicago drainage canal, and that this House regrets the failure to take in the past any effective action and will support the government in future in any drastic action it takes to preserve the interests of Canada and have the treaty enforced without any more delays; and that the government ask the British government to collect for the damage done to Canadian interests of such illegal diversion as reparations due Canada, which amounts to several millions per annum; and, that the onus for the enforcement of the said treaty is on Great Britain and Canada and not on any private individuals.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important questions which this parliament has to deal with. It has been before the House now for some time and the matter is of such vast importance to the people of this country that something will have to be done other than talk about it. The question involved is a very large one. It was dealt with a few years ago in a treaty between Great Britain and the United States, known as the Boundary Waterways Treaty, dated January 11, 1909. After all is said and done, Chicago is not to blame for the situation which has arisen. Chicago has been termed in the United States congress and senate as the "pirate of the lakes," but I say Chicago i3 not to blame. The responsible bodies are the governments of the United States, Great Britain and Canada. There is no mention of Chicago in the treaty at all; nothing is said of the amount of water Chicago may use This is a solemn treaty, and must not be
treated as a scrap of paper, as it has been treated by the government of the United States, with the apparent do nothing policy of this government. This government has made a football of the question. We talk of how Germany treated Belgium, of how she regarded the treaty with Belgium as a scrap of paper; but here is a convention entered into by the governments of Great Britain and the United States which the government and people of the latter country are treating in the same way.
I am not going into the history of this case at the present time. I spoke on this matter in this House in 1922, 1923 and 1924, and on March 26, 1924, the whole case was set out by me then. But I want to ask now whether Chicago is more powerful than the government of the United States, and more powerful tnan tnis parliament and the parliament of Great Britain. It is time Chicago was checked up. The government of the United States should take the matter in hand and enforce the treaty, and Chicago should be no longer allowed to control the government of the United States and prevent this parliament from protecting the people of Canada. In my opinion we have not settled this question sooner because we have been dealing with the wrong people. We have been asking for the production of correspondence, but all the correspondence in this matter has been between the government of Canada and the government of the United States. Canada is not a party to that treaty, because Canada is part and parcel of the British Empire. I have asked several times for the correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain and the British ambassador at Washington, but apparently there is no such correspondence, or at least it is not forthcoming. What has this government done to call the attention of Great Britain to the fact that the terms of this treaty have not been lived up to for many years past? I believe if the attention of the British government had been called to this state of affairs we would have achieved some better results by this time.
The illegal diversion of these waters is, as I have already said, one of the most important things with which we have to deal. It is important not only from the standpoint of navigation and power development, but also with regard to the immense investments of our provinces and municipalities in light and power.
There is some mention now of the United States waiting for another decision by t'he courts. Judge Landis gave a decision on
Chicago Drainage Canal

the merits of this case in 1911, and construed the treaty. He said that up to the time this treaty was entered into Chicago could only take 4,167 cubic second feet of water, not because they 'had any right to it but because they had obtained a permit from the Secretary for War. The public works on the Great Lakes are under the jurisdiction of the Secretary for War, and Chicago received permission to divert temporarily 4,167 cubic second feet of water for drainage and sanitary purposes. Not long after, the Boundary Waters Treaty, 1909, was negotiated which laid down what waters could be diverted, and what not. To-day Chicago, which needs only one thousand cubic feet of water for drainage purposes, is taking ten thousand cubic feet, and the water is not being taken simply for drainage and sanitation purposes at all, but for power purposes, to be used for street and domestic lighting in that great city through the plant erected there at Lockport. Not satisfied with that, they have applied for an even larger amount to be diverted from lake Michigan, which is one of the lakes included in the treaty, although it is inland water. The water flows into that lake from the great hinterland to the north, and the aforesaid treaty, the plans and profiles, all recognize that lake Michigan and the lakes and streams contributory thereto come within the four corners of the treaty.
What is the government going to do? As I said a moment ago, Chicago is now applying for ten thousand cubic feet to be diverted., and the water that is diverted by Chicago will never flow back into the Great Lakes. The water of the Niagara river that is used by the Ontario Hydro-electric Commission does flow back into the river again and on to the mouth of the Niagara river, out through lake Ontario into the St. Lawrence, but not one foot of the water that is diverted by Chicago finds its way back into lake Michigan again. The whole treaty is being laughed at and a football made of the whole question by the legislatures and courts and congress and senate of the United States. What does this government propose to do about it? What this resolution proposes to do is to find a remedy, for where there is a wrong there is always a remedy. The country has stood this diversion long enough now. We have been awaiting conferences, and have had correspondence and meetings and what not; we have just been running around in a circle. There is only one way to enforce this treaty, and that is set out in the treaty itself. The last clause of- the-, treaty, which will be found at the foot of page 28 of the ,&fr. Church.]
statute known as the Boundary Waterways Treaty, provides for the peaceful and amicable settlement of disputes under the treaty by reference to the International Joint Commission and to The Hague. What has this government done to collect the bill for damages done to the public works of this country, to our harbours and rivers and system of canals, on which we are spending large sums of money? What has this government done, or what does it propose to do, to protect the investment of $275,000,000 that the province of Ontario has made in the cheap light and power movement of the Hydro in Ontario. As was pointed out by the late chairman of the Ontario Hydro-electric Commission, the excess waters taken by the Chicago drainage canal, if transformed into direct current, would amount on a conservative basis to 500,000 horse-power, which may be considered equivalent to 5.000,000 tons of coal per annum, which at the recent price of soft coal would amount to about $35,000,000 a year.
What does this government propose to do? Has it prepared under the treaty a bill of damages, and if so, what is the bill of damages for the port of Montreal, for instance, Toronto, and other great ports on the Great Lakes? What is the government's bill of damages for the light and power plants of this country which have suffered as a result of this diversion? What damage has resulted to the trade and commerce of this country by lowering the level of the Great Lakes? One of the results of this diversion has been to lower the level of the lakes. During the last season of navigation, boats on the Welland canal were stranded for days, sometimes for weeks, because of the low water level caused by the Chicago diversion.
What does this resolution propose? It proposes that immediate and drastic action should be taken by this government, through the British government, to enforce the Boundary Waterways Treaty. The proper legal way to go about it is through the British government, not by sending deputations from our municipalities and provinces down to Washington to interview a foreign government. That is a humiliating position for the people of this country to -be in. Delegations from the municipalities and provinces of this country have gone down and appeared before the Rivers and Harbours committee of the United States congress to protect their own interests, and have gone over the head of the Canadian government to take up with the government of a foreign country the enforcement of a treaty made between the Mother Country and the United States, and I say that it is a humiliating

Chicago Drainage Canal
position for this country. What this resolution proposes is that:
-immediate and drastic action should be taken by the government, through the British government, to enforce the Boundary Waterways Treaty (1909) and to forthwith collect damages from the United States for breaches of the treaty by the Chicago drainage canal, and that this House regrets the failure to take in the past any effective action and will support the government in future in any drastic action it takes to preserve the interests of Canada and have the treaty enforced without any more delays; and that the government ask the British government to collect for the damage done to Canadian interests of such illegal diversion as reparations due Canada, which amounts to several millions per annum; and, that the onus for the enforcement of the said treaty is on Great Britain and Canada and not on any private individuals.
It is no use leaving this matter to individuals or to business organizations which go to the United States and appear before the state and federal courts and before a committee of congress. Why should the government of this country have our people going down to Washington to look after their own interests? Are we not under the British flag in this country? Have we not law courts of our own? Are we going over the head of the Supreme court of this country, over the head of the government of this country, over the head of the Privy Council of Canada, over the head of His Majesty's government in Great Britain? Have we not enough authority there to enforce the treaty without having self-appointed persons appearing before some committee of congress to look after our rights, holding a watching brief on behalf of the people, of this country? Has Washington to-day become the capital of Canada? I thought Ottawa was the capital of this country. Ottawa has been called the Washington of the north, but when you see delegations from municipalities, provincial governments and trade organizations in this country going down to Washington in regard to this question, one might be excused for thinking Washington really was the capital of Canada. I think it is time this government should refuse to give passports to selfaccredited delegates who wish to appear before the law courts and legislatures of the United States and before the Harbours and Rivers committee of congress on this question. The time has come for a showdown. When this Boundary Waterways treaty was negotiated in 1909, everbody agreed that for the sake of good international relations something had to be done regarding the flow of water in this great international stream, the St. Lawrence, and the Great Lakes, and after considerable debate in the British House, in this House, and in congress, this treaty >ol 1909 was concluded.
Let us look at this question for a moment from the engineering standpoint. Professor Coleman, one of the greatest geologists on the American continent, says that if this waste of water goes on much longer lakes Erie and Ontario will run dry and become unnavigable in the years that are to come. The people of Canada, as well as their governments, have been altogether too lax in this matter. Canada should have insisted long ago that the terms of the treaty be adhered to. Under article 1 of that treaty Great Britain and the United States, being the high contracting parties, agree that the navigation on all the navigable boundary waters shall forever continue free and open for the purpose of commerce to the inhabitants, and to the ships, vessels and boats of both countries equally.
' It is evident that under the treaty the rights of navigation en;oyed by each country or. equal. Subject to the rights of navigation in these boundary waterways, rivers and streams, belonging half to the United States and half to Canada, the surplus waters, as well as the banks, rapids, and bed of the river or navigable stream, belong to the state and provincial legislatures. This provision has not been adhered to. The treaty, as I have shown, provides that the rights of navigation shall be paramount and that they apply also to lake Michigan. The whole argument of those responsible for the Chicago drainage diversion in this matter is a fallacy. There is no law or authority to be found for their action. Certainly they can find no such rights as they claim in international law, neither is it to be found in the Boundary Waterways treaty. No, the Chicago drainage commission have no such authority in right, custom, usage or treaty. As they say in Chicago, they have simply "taken French leave." They think they are a law to themselves. If the law does not give them what they want, then they think they have the right to act in contravention of it. With them necessity knows no law, or with their government either; they make their solemn treaty a scrap of paper.
The Great Lakes system is the largest, most extensive and navigable waterway in the world. The diversion of water by the Chicago commission has permanently lowered the level to such an extent as to interfere with its development and navigation, something not allowed by the treaty at all. The Chicago drainage canal has lowered the levels of the Great Lakes by diverting an amount of water equal to the amount of water that goes over the American falls at Niagara Falls. That
Chicago Drainage Canal

is the amount of water they are diverting for the Chicago drainage canal, the same amount of water as flows over the American side of the falls every second of time. This is all being done illegally; it is not allowed by treaty. They are diverting 10,000 cubic second feet through the drainage canal on to the Mississippi river, and not one foot of this water can come back again to the Great Lakes. In its natural course this water would pass through the lakes and down to the Canadian seaboard. The reduction of the lake levels is a matter of national concern both to Canada and to the United States. The waterways treaty definitely fixed the amount of water necessary to conserve the water of the Great Lakes for navigation purposes. It also provided that there should be no diversion of boundary waters without the [DOT] authority and consent of both countries. As I have said the case of the Chicago Drainage commission is based very largely on fallacy. They have no sanction in law for the action which they have taken except a permit from the United States Secretary for Wa.r This is not a legal permit, because under the treaty permits cannot be issued except with the consent of both the countries concerned.
It is not necessary that I should go into the history of the scheme for the disposal of the sewage of the city of Chicago, but I may make this statement: Those people met Sir Adam Beck, head of the Hydro Electric system of Ontario. Two years ago Mr. Healy, and all the rest of them, visited Toronto. They also went to Montreal, Quebec, and other ports to discuss this problem with the local municipalities. At Toronto they were met by the harbour commission, and as one of the harbour board I was sorry to see that they did not know more than they did about their own case. They actually advanced the contention that lake Michigan did not come within the terms of the treaty, although that treaty specifically mentions lake Michigan as a part of the Great Lakes system, the watershed of which extends into our northern hinterland. We met these gentlemen in company with representatives of the Ontario government and the Hydro Electric, and went into the question. The commission proposed to erect retaining walls and compensating works on lake Erie and on the St. Lawrence river as an offset to the water they were taking. They were prepared to erect what they called compensating works. I pointed out to them at the time that nothing could compensate the municipalities of Ontario for the loss of their investment of $275,000,000; nothing could compensate the people of the provinces of

Ontario and Quebec for the loss of shipping and the damages to shipping in the port of Montreal and on the St. Lawrence, the damage to ocean going traffic and to trade, commerce and transportation of this country-not even the erection of compensating works to the value of $2,500,000. Such a compensating proposition is so ridiculous that it would be laughed out of any legislature. Imagine any body of men thinking that by erecting a few million dollars of compensating works they could recoup the people of this country for diverting a flow of water of 10,000 cubic second feet, equal to the amount of water per second that goes over the American falls!
And now the time has come when there should be a little action on the part of this government. I may say that I am glad to see a change of opinion in the United States in regard to this proposition; that the Hon. Mr. Hoover, Secretary of State for Commerce, has admitted that there has been a breach of the treaty, and that Canada has a good claim for compensation under the provisions of that treaty. Mr. Newton D. Baker, Secretary for War in the Wilson government- and the city of Cleveland takes the same view -was opposed to this diversion of water for the purposes of the Chicago drainage canal. Not only the city of Cleveland, but all the cities and towns on the American side of the Great Lakes are taking strong action against this diversion. Mr. Baker says that the people of the United States would be very glad to compensate Canada for the loss of millions of dollars by virtue of the act of the Chicago people.
It is admitted that the depth of water in the harbours of the Great Lakes has been lowered to a very serious extent. As regards the harbour of Toronto the launch of the Royal Canadian Yacht Club cannot get into its berth by reason of low water. The provincial government takes the position that if the federal authority does not discharge its duties it must itself intervene to protect the investments of its municipalities. I may say that the Dominion Marine Association, the Civic Federation of Montreal, the Atlantic Shipping Company, the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company, the Canada Steamship Company, the Canadian Water-power Board and the boards of trade of the Dominion, including the Montreal and Toronto boards of trade, and a very great number of other organizations along the Great 'Lakes, have testified to the serious loss which has been sustained throughout the various municipalities in the Canadian area affected.

Chicago Drainage Canal
Professor Coleman, another geologist, states that in his opinion this diversion is going to have the most serious effects on the river St. Lawrence. As I say, navigation would be tied up on the St. Lawrence and in the port of Montreal and the St. Lawrence ship channel would become unnavigable. Professor Coleman says:
A tilt of fifty feet would drain the whole of the Great Lakes into the Mississippi. "Is this beyond the possibilities of modem engineering skill?" He asked. "It is not." A mere deepening of three drainage canals would result in a similar state of affairs. It is entirely possible to drain the whole of the Great Lakes in this way.
Professor Grant, a grandson of a former President of the United States, and a great geologist of the Northwestern University of the United States, says:
Even as it is nature is playing its part in drying up the lakes system and reducing the rivers to streams.
He points out that climatic conditions alone will have a very serious effect, let alone a diversion of 10,000 cubic feet of water per second.
Professor Coleman further gives evidence that the present lake levels in lake Ontario and the Great Lakes are ninety-five per cent due to this diversion of water through the Chicago drainage canal.
Why was the International Joint Commission constituted? To settle promptly and amicably any disputes about this treaty. Its duties are set out in the boundary treaty. Why was it not called upon to take up this question, decide in an amicable way what the damage is and collect it from the proper power. If it had been intended 4 p.m. by the government of Great' Britain and the government of the United States that Chicago should have these vast powers, the treaty would have said so, but there is no mention of Chicago in this treaty from beginning to end. Therefore, Chicago not being mentioned in the treaty, the latter must be construed strictly not only by the courts but by the body appointed to enforce the treaty, namely, the International Joint Commission. There is no way of enforcing this treaty in a civil court. It was taken out of the hands of the civil courts and placed on the shoulders of the International Joint Commission. The case has been taken to court after court in the United States and in every court the matter gets right back to the principles as laid down in 1911 in Judge Landis' decision. They have been before all the state courts in Illinois, the Supreme Court of the United States, the Rivers and Harbours committee of congress and the committees of the Senate, but the 14011-118
sum total of all the legal opinions given by law officers in the United States, the attorney generals of all the state legislatures and the Attorney General of the United States gets back to the decision given fifteen years ago by Judge Landis. What is the use of our wasting any more time in waiting for United States court cases? Three decisions which have been given in the last year all get back to the original decision given by Judge Landis on the 23rd January, 1911, in which he construed the whole treaty, the law, the facts, and the rights of the Chicago people under the permit of the Secretary of State for War and gave his decision. In that decision the judge quotes the original permit which is as follows:
The future diversion of water from Lake Michigan for any purpose is fraught with difficulties. Not only has Canada an interest in the maintenance of lake leveia wixioh the TJlilted States must recognize, hut every foot of water flowing through the Chicago drainage canal lessens the flow at Niagara Falls and at the power sites along the St. Lawrence river, where due to the fall available the same amount of water will create about four times the power that can be generated from it on the Des Plaines and Illinois rivers.
I will read just one paragraph of the judge's decision. The judge, after reviewing the evidence and the law, gave his decision which really summarizes all the decisions given between 1911 and 1926 by the United States. In the last paragraph he says that the consent of Great Britain is necessary to all diversions, otherwise they are illegal. The judge says:
In the last analysis, should congress and the War department, in consideration of all these matters, decline to permit the necessary diversion, the burden is on the district of providing some other method of relief. In other words, the defence that the diversion is necessary for the purpose of sanitation, as against the rule that a navigable right and navigation right is a paramount right, is immaterial. In order to allow the sanitary district a chance to appeal to the War department for relief no order was made restricting the flow.
But, the said judge's order showed that they had no right in law to this diversion. That decision of the judge has been backed up by every court in the United States all the way from 1911 to 1926.
The time has come, in my opinion, for the government of Canada to do something. It is not necessary for a minister of this government to go down to Washington. What has the government ever done to take up this question with the British authorities, because the government of Great Britain and not the government of Canada is one of the parties named in this treaty? Are we to continue until doomsday to allow the government of

Chicago Drainage Canal

the United States to treat this treaty as a scrap of paper? This treaty was signed by the President of the United States on behalf of the people of that country. Is the government of Canada to sit in silence relying on what it calls its own autonomy and treaty making powers? Let the government enforce this treaty in order to prevent even greater damage being done to navigation. Are we to wait for a few self-appointed individuals, a few busybodies who, when they were asked if they represented the government of Canada, did not know whether they did or not, to go down to Washington and argue our case. Where does the British government come in on this question? I have the utmost respect for the government and the people of the United States and I appreciate the fact that there are many people on the Great Lakes including some of the state governors who take veiy strong grounds on this question. A meeting was held at which some twelve governors were present, and while I will not read all that was said. I should like to read what Mr. Baker, late Secretary for War, said at a meeting of the Great Lakes Harbour Association at Detroit on the 14th January of this year where he was one of the prominent speakers:
When he touched on the peaceful relations that have existed between the United States and Canada, Mr. Baker's voice trembled with his earnestness. "I would be willing to be taxed heavily to pay for the sewage disposal system of Chicago rather than to be a party to the slightest affront to the Dominion of Canada. I know what international complications mean, and I know that all of us pray that the rule of justice between nations will forever supplant the rule of force. In all our difficulties, we want amicable arrangements effected between ourselves and any other country. That is true in this case.
"Canada has an academic and economic interest in the Great Lakes and we cannot affect the lakes in any way without affecting Canada. Moreover, the lakes have made us the steel empire of the world. To imperil that great commerce is for us to commit industrial suicide. Some way can be found to settle this controversy to the best interests of the whole nation, and Chicago can be persuaded to see it in that light. We must take a broad view of the whole matter."
"A civic outlaw" was the characterization of Chicago by William Bruce, president of the association, in his opening address at the forenoon session.
"Every newspaper in Chicago," Mr. Bruce said, "is deploring the great crime wave among Chicago's citizens. They admit it springs from a general contempt for law among Chicago's people. Every civic organization and pulpit in Chicago is clamoring for a remedy. What else can they expect where the municipal government of Chicago persists in a ruthless contemptuous and colossal violation of the law?
"In continuing to steal from lake Michigan more than twice the amount of water allowed it for sanitation purposes by a permit from the United States War Department, Chicago is not only doing a damage totalling hundreds of millions to Great Lakes cities, including itself, but it is raising the greatest moral issue in American politics since the Civil war.
IMr. Church.]
"After every court before which its theft has been contested, including the Supreme Court of the United States, has rejected its claims and condemned its action as illegal, Chicago now turns to the congress of the United States in an appeal for congress to make legal to-morrow what the United States Supreme Court has stamped as illegal to-day.
" Chicago takes the position of the outlaw, the bandit. It says to the rest of the country: 'Right or wrong we are going to have our way. We've got the water illegally-but what of it? We're going to continue to take it until something more than courts and laws stop us.'
"Is Chicago more powerful than the courts and laws of the United States? There is the issue in a nut shell. Chicago believes that it is. We believe that it is not. In the battle which is coming the whole country will presently be involved."
The foregoing shows that among the leading citizens of the United States there is a sense of justice in this matter. It is admitted that we have a claim for damages. Now if Mr. Hoover, the Secretary for Commerce in the United States cabinet, declares in unmistakable language, not only at this convention but at other meetings, that Canada has a claim for damages under the treaty, then where is that claim? What officer or minister on behalf of this government is preparing our claim for damages in this matter? Has that claim ever been presented? Has it ever been drawn up? If not, why not? That claim should be presented to the British government who would demand some action on the part of the United States in regard to it, and there would be a hearing, not before any of the courts either in the United States or in Canada, but before a joint commission and, if necessary, a convention like that of The Hague, as the treaty provides.
A former congressman of Illinois, Mr. G. L. Shaw, who represents the district bordering the Illinois river, which forms part of the water-way now connecting lake Michigan with the Mississippi, protested in strong terms against the continuation of the offence perpetrated by the Chicago sanitary district. He declared that the value of the lands adjoining the Illinois river had been largely destroyed by reason of the diversion of lake Michigan waters through the Illinois river channel, and indicated that notwithstanding very large expenditures which property owners had made to dyke their lands, in flood periods the barriers were broken and the lands flooded and rendered comparatively useless for agricultural or other purposes. He gave striking instances of the subterfuges which he said were adopted by the sanitary district to mislead property holders in the river district, and he outlined methods whereby, he alleged, those who suffered damage are defrauded in their attempts to get compensation.

Chicago Drainage Canal
The Hon. Daniel W. Hoan, mayor of Milwaukee, delivered a very effective address dealing with the sanitary phase of the problem and its solution. He made a startling exposure of the very extensive damage suffered by structures erected on pile foundations in communities situated on waters, the levels of which are reduced by the Chicago theft. He stated that in Milwaukee an examination of pile foundations originally below water level, but now partly above, by reason of the Chicago abstraction, had shown that the heads of the piles were perishing of dry rot, and that colossal expenditures must be made to save from collapse wharf and building structures resting upon wooden pile foundations. This is an alarming phase of the situation which must appeal to all who are versed in engineering matters or are familiar with construction work. Hitherto it has not been generally expressed or stressed, as Mr. Hoan declared.
What Mr. Hoan says about the condition in his municipality is true throughout the Great Lakes. I have here a letter sent me by the mayor of Thorold. He says he understands that the matter will be brought up in parliament, and in view of this fact he had a joint meeting called of the municipal councils of St. Catharines, Merritton and Thorold for the purpose of considering local conditions. As a result of that meeting a petition was prepared and forwarded to the Dominion government, a copy of which I have received. This petition says in part:
That in common with the people of Canada, but more particularly by reason of their close proximity to and direct dependence upon the Welland canal, the inhabitants of your petitioning municipalities have-suffered and will continue to suffer severe loss by reason of the increasingly frequent and dangerously low levels and state of the waters of the Welland canal.
The petition goes on to state that these conditions have been more marked during the present year than in preceding years. The navigation through the Welland canal has been on several occasions during the present season seriously interfered with, and at times it has been completely suspended on this account. This is a heavy handicap, entailing great financial loss, through the inability to move grain and other freights. By reason of these conditions, the petition declares, and the necessity for frequently shutting off the flow of waters into the old Welland canal and into the many hydraulic races and flumes fed from the Welland canal, so that levels of the canal might be increased and maintained for navigation, many of the industrial plants have had to close down for periods ranging from hours to days at a time, thereby causing great loss and inconvenience to manufac-14011-HSi
turers and others, and loss of employment for temporary periods to the operatives and employees of these industries. The petition goes on to say:
5.	That particularly the said suspensions of operations have caused a great loss to the pulp and paper industries on or near the said canal, stock in process being damaged or destroyed by reason of compulsory stoppage of work thereon or from the dirty and noxious state of the waters when water levels have been restored.
6.	That the sanitation of the district is endangered if the said conditions remain or recur, as the water supply systems of your petitioning municipalities are affected thereby.
7.	That the operation of industries and of electric railway transportation, and the lighting of homes and stores in the Niagara peninsula and in the city of Hamilton is directly affected by the existence and recurrence of the said conditions, and the same have already entailed loss and inconvenience
8.	That generally the people of the whole of the Niagara peninsula are suffering great inconvenience and monetary loss by reason of the said conditions, and a recurrence or continuation of the same will seriously prejudice the whole community and arrest the development of one of the most important industrial sections of the Dominion.
9.	That whether or not there be other causes contributory to the existence of the said conditions, it is principally attributable to the diversion of waters of the Great Lakes to take care of the needs of the sanitary district of the city of Chicago, whereby, it 33 said waters are illegally diverted into the Mississippi river from the Great Lakes and their natural effluent.
10. That your petitioning municipalities deem it essential to the welfare of their inhabitants and of grave importance to the whole Dominion that steps be taken for immediate, if temporary, alleviation of the said conditions, and towards complete and permanent removal thereof.
This petition is signed by Mr. Jacob Smith, mayor, for St. Catharines, Mr. L. B. E. Mc-Cleary, mayor for Thorold, and Mr. Thomas Hastings, mayor, for Merritton. It is important that some action be taken to remedy the present situation before the next season of navigation opens, or the condition that now exists will be greatly aggravated.
I should like now to refer to the effect of this diversion of water on shipments out of the port of Montreal, and its bearing upon ocean traffic from that port. Mr. R. W. Reford, president of the Shipping Federation of Canada, in the course of an address to the annual meeting of the federation the other day, strongly attacked the diversion of water by Chicago %vhich he said was detrimental to the St. Lawrence route and to this Dominion in general. Let me quote from his remarks:
The waters of the St. Lawrence and the waters of the Great Lakes are the birthright of Canada, to be shared jointly and internationally with the United States. Canada cannot afford to give away this birthright. If we bargain with the United States and agree to waive our rights in International Law, we, by this, create a precedent for which Canada will suffer for all time. I would even go so far as to say that by doing so we tacitly agree to allow the Amerb

Chicago Drainage Canal
cans to take from us what they covet and then negotiate with us what they will pay for it or, if possible, avoid paying for it at all. This is what has been done in the case of Chicago Drainage Canal, and if we do not take a firm stand in this matter which is vital to Canada's future, and insist on our rights, it is what will occur again whenever the necessities of the United States call for it.
As Mr. Reford, president of the Shipping Federation of Canada, says:
Water is capital, and if we give away our capital, while we may beg, borrow or steal to replace what we have lost, we are, for all time, in the position of having lost this water, and when the time comes that it will be necessary to reform and improve our channels should we not be in a position to do so with the full flow of water tributary to the St. Lawrence watershed which nature endowed us with, we will for all time be short the quantity which it is now proposed we should give away.
The unfairness of the attitude assumed in this Chicago drainage canal scheme is not, I think, fully appreciated. The value of this water which Chicago proposes to take from the watershed of the Great Lakes to the city of Chicago is infinitesimal to the value of this same water to all the ports and harbours of the United States and Canada lining the Great Lakes; to the value of the water power capable of development at Niagara and on the St. Lawrence. This same water used to produce power for Chicago would yield from four to five times more power at Niagara and on the St. Lawrence.
Here is what he says about the cost of this diversion to the Dominion:
The cost of deepening our canals, our lake channels and river channels may run into hundreds of millions of dollars, and when all this work has been accomplished we will still be short all the amount of water that Chicago proposes to take from us.
And this diversion is costing us millions annually, in Mr. Reford's opinion:
We are already aware of the detrimental effect of Chicago's action on our river estimated by conservative engineers to run into millions annually through the lowering of the water and the consequent inconvenience and loss to the commercial interests.
The issue is indeed a national one, and the need for action should be brought to the attention of the people of this Dominion without delay.
Now, the city of Montreal appointed Mr. DeGaspe Beaubien to prepare a report on the effects of Chicago's diversion in relation to navigation from lake Superior to Montreal, and he shows conclusively that great damage has already resulted from the reduction in the levels of the Great Lakes and of the St. Lawrence. This has been estimated as entailing a loss on ship-owners of 120,000,000 annually, exclusive of the loss sustained by the various ports. Mr. Harvie, general manager of the port of Montreal, on the basis of the figures given by Mr. Arthur Surveyor on the effects of this abstraction from the St. Lawrence claims that it causes a loss to Montreal shippers of approximately $10,000,000 a year.

When the matter was discussed before the Rivers and Harbours convention at Detroit on January 14,	1926, those representing
Chicago presented another argument in an attempt to justify the diversion. They compared the amount of water taken out of the Niagara river to that taken by the Chicago drainage canal, which they asserted was very much less. But as has been often pointed out, the water taken by Chicago is not returned to lake Michigan, whereas all the water taken by the Chippawa canal and other works is returned to the Niagara river. Under the boundary treaty Canada is allowed 36,000 cubic feet per second and the United States 20,000 cubic feet per second. But it must be remembered that of Canada's share 12,000 cubic feet per second is exported to the United States. So that our neighbours really get 32,000 against our 24,000 cubic feet per second.
I urge on the government that there is only one proper way to deal with this matter. There is no use our sending various individuals to Washington to interview the heads of the different government departments. This is a treaty between Great Britain and the United States, and the only proper way to get specific performance and to present our case is through the British government. Let us say to the British authorities in effect: A serious breach has occurred, and here is Canada's bill for damages sustained by the Chicago water steal; what do you propose to do about it? Undoubtedly something should be done. The people of Canada are getting sick and tired of the want of action by this government regarding the settlement of what is a very vital question. If this inaction is due to our added status and autonomy, then I say the sooner such autonomy and increased status are disregarded the better for the interests of Canada. We have a Department of External Affairs costing us annually $105,000 that does nothing, and we have a high commissioner in London at an annual expense of $107,000, which is also of no avail to help us. Surely these two departments should be able to advise the government as to the proper course to be followed in putting a stop to this illegal diversion, and as to aid in presenting our damage claim. Has Canada also consented to the diversion, or to what?
Now, what is being done? Are we content to have every Tom, Dick and Harry go down to Washington to represent the government of Canada in this important matter? Is that the way to get redress? How much money has been paid agents and American and other

Chicago Drainage Canal
lawyers to appear before the United States Supreme Court and the Rivers and Harbours committee of congress to look after our interests? The other day a private citizen of this country interviewed the president, and some of the papers said that he represented the people of Canada! It should not be forgotten that the treaty governing this case was made between Great Britain and the United States, not between Canada and the United States, and therefore we should proceed through the British government in our efforts to secure redress. I have asked the government to lay on the table any correspondence that it has had with the British government. I speak subject to correction, but I do not think there is any such correspondence. Canada has played a lone hand and got nowhere. If, however, I am mistaken, I should like to have an opportunity to peruse the correspondence in order that I may ascertain what this government has done in a strictly legal way to enforce the terms of this treaty, instead of the "watchful waiting" and being "too proud to fight," and so that Canada's and Ontario's interest may be protected.
Bonds amounting to $275,000,000 have been sold in New York and London, representing money invested in light and power plants and hydro-electric radials in the province of Ontario. The security for that investment is liable to be wiped out. to-morrow if the levels recede much more and if this diversion goes on. The time for talk has passed; we want action, and we want to know what the government of Great Britain propose, to do about it. The United States is well able to pay any bill for damages which might be presented to it. At the present time Great Britain is paying $500,000 a day on her war debt to the United States, after having spent more, in blood and money, than any other nation during the war. I say the time has arrived when a bill should be presented to the British government, to be forwarded to the United States, for damages done to our Canadian interests through failure to carry out the terms of this treaty. Hon. members from the west, from the prairie provinces and from central Canada are all vitally interested in this question. There is no use in this government sending any more telegrams, memoranda or things of that kind winding up in talk and more talk; Chicago will just laugh at them as they have laughed at the decisions of the courts. Chicago has gone beyond the Supreme court now to congress, and I am sorry to see some Canadians among those engaged in lobbying in connection with this question. It is a humiliating position when the people of this country, with law and justice on our side, have to engage men to go down to Washington to press this question. Unless something is done now, action will again be deferred for a long time.


Hon. EDMUND BRISTOL (Toronto East Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I think the subject brought up by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) is, next to the tariff, the most important matter before the people of Canada to-day, whether or not one is entirely in accord with the views of the hon. member in regard to procedure. Personally I think the hon. member has the correct view, and that this matter has to be taken up through the British government just as the treaty was taken up through the British ambassador at Washington, and just as some treaty amendment is going on now. Of course, these things are all done in consultation with members of the Canadian government who are instructed to deal with the matter.
There are two factors of vital importance in this case, and the first is the vast damage which has been done and is being done to this country-as much to the province of Quebec, the city of Montreal, the city of Quebec and the St. Lawrence river as to any other part of Canada-by this illegal diversion. Great damage has been done and is being done from day to day in connection with navigation. It affects the western men, who ship their grain through Canadian ports, in this way; if you lower the depth of water in the Great Lakes by six inches or a little more, as has been done by the Chicago diversion, it means the grain-carrying vessels must carry so many thousands of bushels less than they otherwise could carry. It also means a great deal in connection with the dredging which has to go on. In fact, the estimate has been made- I do not know how correct it is-that the expenditure would amount to $35,000,000 in one year. But that is a detail. The real point is that from 1911 down to the present time the city of Chicago, one of the richest cities in the world and quite well able to pay for their drainage, have had a full knowledge of the illegality of taking water out of these international waterways for sanitary purposes. They have also used that water for power, and now they have the audacious idea of deepening the Mississippi river by diverting upwards of 10,000 cubic second feet from our Great Lakes. If Chicago was a poor
Chicago Drainage Canal

city I have no doubt the people of Canada would be perfectly willing to help them. I would feel as Mr. Baker, the former Secretary
for War, felt when he said that he would be glad to contribute his share as an American to help poor Chicago as far as their drainage troubles were concerned.
There is nothing to be said in favour of Chicago. They have simply had audacity and nerve, and have been committing this illegal act since 1911 with full knowledge. I am not finding fault with any government, but I do say that we should now take a very strong position first as regards the damages which this country has sustained and is sustaining and for which the United States as a country, not Chicago, must pay. Further, we must stop any further diversion of these waters. We fortunately have the decisions of United States courts, but why should we wait for such decisions in connection with a matter which affects our national rights? Fortunately for us the state of New York recently came into the arena as against Chicago, and now we have several states fighting Chicago, and others backing up Chicago, desiring to get water with which to deepen the Mississippi river. Even should the decision be to deepen the Mississippi, Canada's rights still obtain, no matter what the American courts may decide. We are a part of the British Empire and expect our reasonable share of protection, assuming that we are not able to handle the matter for ourselves, as of course we would like to do.
There is no real problem in this connection, because we have the admission of men like Mr. Hoover, who said the other day, "Oh .yes, we could pay for that water." He said they were taking now about 10,000 cubic second feet, and that Chicago could probably get along with 6,000 cubic second feet and use the balance to deepen the Mississippi river, Paying for the water is a very small part of the question. At the time that treaty was entered into water power was not so important as it is to-day, because the world had not then realized the power which could be generated from falling water, and navigation was the important point. Chicago and other neighbouring cities on the lakes were allowed to take what water they needed for sanitary and domestic purposes, but nothing was suggested in the treaty permitting them to take water out of one watershed and put it into another. That is against the laws of all nations of the world; you cannot legally take water out of one watershed and divert it into another. Canada and the United States have equal shares in this water; we have been and

I hope always will be friendly neighbours. I have a friendly feeling towards the people of the United States, and it is difficult for me to understand why for fifteen years or more men as able and clever as Chicago business men should be so fussy about taking this water from the Great Lakes when, by the expenditure of a few million dollars of their own money, they could have all the sanitation necessary without an international complication, which so far has twenty-four states opposing Chicago on one side side and about ten on the other.
The Liberal party was in power at the time this treaty was made; they saw this going on, but never supposed, I believe, that Chicago would continue to take more and more water to which that city had no legal right. With ail respect, I think that without further delay the government of this country should present through the British ambassador at Washington a claim for the damages we have sustained by the Chicago diversion, with full notice of the future damages we would claim, and a polite request that the city of Chicago in attending to its own domestic water supply comply with the terms of the treaty concluded between Great Britain and the United States with respect to that matter.
This is such a vital matter that one wonders that not more attention has been given to it in the past, and I think the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) has done a great public service to Canada in the last four years in bringing to our attention what has been going on. We have been a hopeful and peaceful people; we have believed that probably Chicago would comply with the terms of the treaty, but recently they had an order of the court to continue to take an additional 10,000 cubic second feet. As far as Canada is concerned, they have not the right to take one additional cubic foot per second. They can take the water for domestic purposes, but they must return it to the watershed from which they take it. We should stand on that position, and ask our friends in Great Britain, through the British ambassador at Washington, to present our case. We have a perfectly proper case, and it does not need much argument, for almost every distinguished lawyer and almost every fair-minded man in the United States, including the ministers, have taken the position that Chicago was doing wrong. As far as this country is concerned, on account of the low water levels, we are having to spend money on dredging and other methods to deepen the water all over the Great Lakes and in the St. Lawrence, while Chicago continues to do wrong and is not pay-

Chicago Drainage Canal
ing any damages to Canada. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this matter would be brought to a head in a very nice pleasant and agreeable way, if a diplomatic effort were made, first of all, to present our claim in the best possible form against the United States for what Chicago is doing, and secondly, our claim that within a very reasonable time at all events-we are not so much in need of that water for power to-day, but within a reasonable time we shall need it-Chicago should be compelled to do what other cities of the world have had to do, look after their own sanitation and pay the expenses of it.
As far as the United States is concerned, it is very important, of course, as we are neighbours, that we should live on pleasant and friendly terms. I am glad it is only the city of Chicago that, has got greedy in this particular matter, although I see that some distinguished gentlemen in the United States want more power for Chicago and more water for the Mississippi river. They even want a canal from the Great Lakes to New York, and to take our water to put into a canal for that purpose. Unless therefore, we take a firm position, our rights will be further infringed.
Picture for yourself what would happen if we were taking water from the United States. Why, in that great country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific and from the Great Lakes to the gulf of Mexico, you would hear one great roar. Not only that, but some of the papers of the United States have the audacity to say that the government of this country, if you please, are trying to raise a feeling against Chicago in the United States, and trying to effect and influence legislation in the United States. Now we may not agree with' this government on some matters, but we know that that is the last thing any government of this country would do, no matter on which side of politics it was; but it just shows the dirty character of the attack; it is not a nice attack at all. I regret to say I saw a similar attack about a year ago made by a member of congress on Canada. He said that she was interfering, trying to affect the internal politics of the United States in connection with the Chicago matter. It seems to me that the proper course for us to take is to present our case through the British ambassador at Washington. Let him present the claim we want presented on behalf of Canada. If they want to have litigation in the United States between the state of New York and other states, they may enjoy themselves as much as they want in that matter, but so far as Canada is concerned, that does not affect our rights at all. The hon. member for Toronto Northwest said that Great Britain was paying about S600,000
a day to the United States. If we keep in as part of the British Empire, it is quite possible that we may say to the government of Great Britain:	One of your commonwealth is losing
an enormous amount of money by wrong action on the part of the United States, and why should one member of the family pay money to the United States so long as the United States is inflicting terrible damage on another part of the empire? But if Canada is treated fairly in this matter by the United States, there is no reason why she should not contribute to the defence of the empire.
I did not have a chance to speak in the debate the other day on our relations to the empire, but I say this as a Canadian:	We
have had the benefit of the British navy for the defence of this country for 165 years. We have Japan and China on one side of us, with lots of future possibilities. We have tried a navy in this country, and have not been successful, because obviously our people would much rather work at domestic matters, whereas in England the people are at no point more than fifty miles from the sea, and they love the sea; following the sea is their business, and I would much rather that we should contribute something towards the upkeep of the British navy than try to run ships of our own. They know the business; they have been in it for years, and they can get more for their money than we ever could, and no navy that we ever could have would be of the slightest use if Japan said she wanted more fish out of the Pacific ocean. The time has come when we should be very much a part of the British Empire. In 1776 the United States had had the protection of the British navy for about 130 years, against Spain, against France, and had grown great and prosperous, but when a little tax was proposed on tea, as soon as the country had got its breath, they broke away from Great Britain at a time when she was in war troubles. Let us be a part of the British Empire, and let us do our fair share, whatever it is. Certainly we should be very proud to be a member of the British Empire. No empire in the history of the world has ever had the fairness and justice which the British Empire has shown to all peoples and all classes and all conditions, and now it seems that we should have a little help from them with reference to Chicago. I cannot see myself, with every courtesy to the government of the United States, why the government of that great country-I suppose the greatest country in the world to-day, in wealth at all events -should allow a city like Chicago to go on doing the things it is doing illegally and improperly, and after the courts have decided that Chicago is acting illegally and improperly.
186S
Chicago Drainage Canal


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, I think that in the main the government agrees with mostly everything that has been said by the two gentlemen who have just been discussing the matter.	-
Perhaps it would not be out of place at this moment to rehearse the history of this difficulty, which is international in character. May I say also that I think this is a most opportune time to be chosen for a discussion of this question, for the reason that the lakes this year, if not last year, will be at the lowest level they have reached in easily one hundred years. Still there is this comforting fact, that the lake levels, which undoubtedly are very low, have been as low on former occasions as they are at the present time. They have reached this low level partly on account of climatic conditions, as well as by reason of the diversion of water by Chicago. I agree most heartily with the suggestions of both hon. gentlemen who have spoken that the time has arrived when we should press most vigorously for a settlement of this difficulty. But we must not shut our eyes to the fact that the Chicago diversion is responsible for only six inches of the lowering of the lake levels at the present moment. I do not say that with any hope of diverting attention from Chicago but rather with a view to urging more strongly than ever the restoration of the water diverted. But inasmuch as the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has pointed out that shipping will lose millions of dollars on account of the lower lake levels and of the difficulty of getting into our harbours, this is the time in my opinion when vigorous action should be taken in connection with this matter. I do not say that vigorous action has not been taken up to this moment. I do not quite agree with my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Church) that the government have been lax in their duty in bringing this question to the attention of the American government, because we have been doing that repeatedly and doing it through the British representative at Washington, the only avenue by which we could approach the United States government. May I say this: We have never, either now or any other time, authorized any individual in a private capacity to go down there and speak for the government of Canada. Private individuals have accompanied delegations to Washington and to conventions of interested cities and municipalities along the Great Lakes and made representations. I believe my hon. friend is quite correct* that one of them went so far as to have an audience with the president 
himself. A few days ago it was my privilege to be down there, not to discuss the Chicago matter but the question of the preservation of the scenic beauties of Niagara. Incidentally the matter of the Chicago diversion came up, and may I say that I found Mr. Hoover, with whom I was in conference, most anxious for a solution of this very vexed Chicago question. However, I was not authorized by the government to discuss it and refrained from doing so except to say this in a veryt informal way on behalf of the government of Canada-that we do not recognize one single foot of diversion at Chicago or anywhere else. Our position was that we wanted the restoration of the water. We were not concerned with compensation for that diversion, but rather the return of the whole of that water into the Great Lakes system, the lack of which was causing us a considerable amount of damage at the present moment. That is our attitude, and if I were to spend hours in giving explanations I do not think that I could state the position more clearly.
Just a word or two about the situation on the Great Lakes in order to give hon. members, perhaps, a clearer prospect of that situation, as it now exists. As hon. gentlemen already know there is a joint administration of the control of lake Superior and that has tended-I think I am safe in making the assertion-towards retaining the level of that lake at the present moment one foot higher than it otherwise would have been. So that control will play a very important part. But last year when the low levels began to affect shipping, at the Soo difficulty was experienced, even at the entrance of the canal. However, the control board authorized the letting loose of 8,000 cubic feet of water and the difficulty was cured at that particular point. Now in fairness we cannot argue that Chicago had anything to do with that because we know the Chicago diversion affects the levels of lake Huron but not particularly the level at the outlet of lake Superior. My reason for mentioning this is that I found our American friends, in an informal discussion, very anxious to discuss remedial measures; but I fail to see how the government or representatives of this country can be prepared at this time to discuss remedial works for which the United States would be willing to pay. Our attitude is that we want restoration of the water, and not remedial works. In fairness to Chicago I must say this: We are willing within a reasonable amount of time, lest injury be done that municipality, but no longer than is absolutely necessary, to permit Chicago to establish the

Chicago Drainage Canal
necessary works for the treatment of its sewage and to return to the Great Lakes system all the water that is now being diverted. That in a nut shell is the position of the government of Canada. I found at Washington, as I say, a disposition on the part of the administration there to have the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States carried out to its full effect but I wili add that, as my hon. friend has just pointed out, a tremendous amount of pressure is being exercised in congress itself by Chicago interests, or the representatives of the cities along the Mississippi river who have recently become interested in the construction of a ship canal from lake Michigan to the gulf of Mexico. What effect that pressure will have will be evidenced within a few days, as congress will evidently deal with the bill that is before it. Canada is fortunate, bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in this matter, in having the good-will of the United States ministers. It is that this diversion should be discontinued, that it is illegal in every sense of the word. What the future may have in store with respect to the ultimate settlement of this question I am not prepared to say except to affirm that this is the moment at which pressure of the strongest character should be brought to bear upon the United States government for a settlement of this rather vexed question.
With respect to asking for damages for the injury to shipping that has taken place in the past it might be effective as regards the past two or three years, but one cannot say that it would be effective for a greater period than that because the lake levels did not begin to fall until about seven years ago, and owing to climatic conditions they have been falling very rapidly since that time. Undoubtedly we have suffered, and they admit that we have suffered, to the extent of six inches in the lake levels owing to the Chicago diversion and to that extent hon. gentlemen opposite may be correct in their views. But frankly I do not think that that is the strongest argument that we can present. What we want and what we have maintained throughout the whole controversy-not only this government but preceding governments-is that we should have returned to us the water that is being diverted. We are well aware of the fact that despite those protests-not in recent years may I say but in the years prior to 1920-Chicago went merrily along widening its canal, making provision for greater diversion than it enjoyed under the permit issued to it in 1899, I think, of 4,167 feet.


Arthur Meighen: Who issued that permit?


Charles A. Stewart: The Secretary for War.


Arthur Meighen: Of the United States?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes. Canada has never been consulted in connection with this diversion of water, and she never was a party to the diversion.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Did Canada make no
protest at that time?


Charles A. Stewart: Not until 1912. That is the first protest, I think, that we have any record of as having been entered by the Canadian government. Of course, it must be remembered that in 1909 we entered into negotiation and consummated a treaty covering the whole waterway system. I think that treaty has been of immense advantage to Canada because on that occasion there was set up what is known as the International Joint Commission. With the single exception of Chicago, as has just been pointed out, through the instrumentality of that commission we have come to an agreement on every question that was in dispute. I think this commission has performed splendid service for Canada along the international waterways. In the first place, as hon. gentlemen will remember, there was the question of the St. Mary's river, and the allocation of the amount of water that could be diverted for irrigation purposes in southern Alberta and in the contiguous state across the international boundary line.


Arthur Meighen: That was not the first
one. There was quite a dispute in regard to the levels of the Rainy river and the lake of the Woods before that.


Charles A. Stewart: I stand
corrected by my right hon. friend. I was going to speak of it later, but I will reverse the order. That was settled very satisfactorily. It had in it possibilities of a great deal of controversy arising out of the allocation of those waters. It involved the bringing into the river of waters that were flowing into another direction on the United States side and it contained possibilities of developing into a serious international dispute. The first question that came under consideration of the board was that of the Rainy river and the lake of the Woods, a controversy which was settled just a couple of years ago. As a matter of fact it is not yet settled in its entirety, because an investigation is still going on with respect to the upper reaches of Rainy lake and Rainy river. But a settle-
1S70
Chicago Drainage Canal

ment was arrived at in the case of the lake of the Woods; a treaty was enacted, and that question is beyond the bounds of dispute so far as the two governments are concerned.
As regards the St. Lawrence reaches and some minor disputes of no particular importance in regard to the mouth of the St. John river, and where the international boundary should be placed, these questions have been got out of the way, so that this is the sole remaining active difficulty at the moment, and I for one am hopeful that we can, without resorting to drastic action, effect a settlement of this rather serious dispute.


Mr. GEARY:: Is the matter now before
the International Joint Commission?


Charles A. Stewart: No.


George Reginald Geary: Has any step been taken
to bring it before that commission?


Charles A. Stewart: Nothing
except an informal discussion between Secretary Hoover and myself the other day with respect to this matter.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambton):: Would the minister, when he is answering that question, be good enough to tell us what steps really have been taken by this government towards solving or attempting to solve the problem?


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know of other drastic action that might be taken than that of entering suit, as suggested by hon. gentlemen who have spoken, asking for damages for the injury done. No one, of course, is thinking of resorting to arms in connection with a dispute of this kind. I am certain it can be settled.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I would
expect that the government would take some legal action in the matter, or at least call the attention of the government at Washington to the condition of affairs, and the minister might give us some idea of what has been done in that regard.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
been repeatedly in communication with the Washington government by despatches protesting against this diversion and stating our position with respect to it. The correspondence in that regard has been tabled.


Mr. HEAPS:: What are the replies?


Charles A. Stewart: The replies are always that action will be taken for the purpose of reducing the diversion at
Chicago.

Mr. MoGIBBON: I believe, in the diversion of water at Niagara, Canada was given about 16,000 feet per second more than the United States. Did the diversion at Chicago in any way affect that?


Charles A. Stewart: It has been argued by some of our United States friends, I believe, not officially, that because Canada had an advantage of 16,000 feet in the allocation by treaty of water at Niagara, that was in compensation for the diversion at Chicago, but I have not been able to discover anything of that kind.


Arthur Meighen: It is because the falls
are on the Canadian side.


Charles A. Stewart: Not particularly.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The main waters are on the Canadian side.


Arthur Meighen: That is what I meant.


Charles A. Stewart: At the time the treaty arrangement was made there was a diversion of power, attributable to 12,000 cubic feet already allocated to Canada, to the United States. A quantity of 4,000 odd feet would be accounted for by the fact that the bulk of the water was on the Canadian side of the river. In no way by the treaty at Niagara have we compromised the position with respect to the diversion of water at Chicago.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Have the United States government at any time admitted the correctness of the position that was taken?


Charles A. Stewart: In coldblooded language they have not admitted that the diversion at Chicago was illegal. The position that the United States government will likely take is that when the treaty of 1909 was enacted lake Michigan was only incidentally mentioned, and I know the argument pleaded by the United States lawyers before the Supreme Court of the
5 p.m. United States was that the waters of lake Michigan were not boundary waters and therefore the diversion from lake Michigan did not apply to the Boundary Waters' treaty. I may say frankly that is an absurd position to take, but I am pointing out to my hon. friend that is one of the arguments they are using. It is true lake Michigan is not mentioned as boundary waters, but it is also true that the outlet of lake Michigan is into lake Huron and that the flowage from lake Michigan affects boundary waters.

Chicago Drainage Canal


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose the
minister pointed out that the lake of the Woods was in the same position.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite irrespective of the treaty of 1909 international law makes it very clear that that is the case. When the treaty was enacted in 1909 between the government of the United States and the government of Great Britain, which means after all the government of Canada, through the British ambassador, there was a permit, not mentioned in the treaty at all, for the diversion of 4,167 feet of water. Therefore, because that was in existence, they argue that they are entitled to at least that much. The government of the United States have never officially to the government of Canada taken that position.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I hope not.


Charles A. Stewart: We have no definite admission from the government of the United States as to what interpretation they will put upon the matter other than that obtained from them a few weeks ago which I placed on Hansard on the 24th February, showing what that diversion meant and what a reduction in that diversion bringing it back to the permit of 1899 of 4,167 feet would mean.


Peter McGibbon: Would the diversion at
Niagara be affected in any way if the exportation of that power to the United States were stopped?


Charles A. Stewart: The matter of allocation of power between the two countries will undoubtedly come up at a later date. It seems to me that the only position Canada can take is that there shall be an equal distribution of power all along the international reaches. I hope that the report of the St. Lawrence Joint Engineering Board will be submitted in June-I am informed it will not be later than June-and when it is we shall have a comprehensive finding on the St. Lawrence and its reaches.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: What does the minister mean by an equal distribution of power? Does he mean that at Niagara the distribution should be equal?


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking of the whole international stretch.


Arthur Meighen: That would involve the same meaning as the hon. member for Lin-
	1
coin infers. I think it is serious for the minister to say that there should be an equal distribution of power as between the two countries.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
follow my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: This is the point. At Niagara the greater flow is on the Canadian side; the main flow is there, and all that flows on our side is our water. That flow is much greater than the flow on the United States side, and we should have it, just as if at any point along the boundary the greater flow happened to be on the United States side it should belong to the United States.


James Dew Chaplin: We have a
larger amount of power at Niagara than they have on the United States side.


Arthur Meighen: We should not admit a right to equal distribution.


Charles A. Stewart: The question in regard to the whole international stretch will come up for consideration, embracing power from one end of the system to the other. It must come up, because the question of export is bound to be considered sooner or later.


Peter McGibbon: I understood the minister to say that we were given 36,000 feet at Niagara as against 20,000 on the United States side, by reason of the fact that the greater bulk of the flow was in Canada, and partly, as well, for the reason that power was being exported from Canada to the United States. Is that correct?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Suppose we should withdraw that exportation of power, what would be the effect on the distribution as between the two countries.


Charles A. Stewart: If we were
dealing with Niagara alone then undoubtedly.
[DOT] because of the larger volume of flow on our side of the river, we should be entitled to greater consideration. But I was speaking broadly in reference to some agreement covering the whole range of power.


Edmund James Bristol: Will the minister be good enough to let me read a short quotation apropos of this point. The following is of interest:
The object of legislation would be to put a stop to [DOT] the further depletion of the falls, and at the same time inflict the least possible injury upon the important interests now dependent upon this water power. The

Chicago Drainage Canal
amount to be diverted on the Canadian side (36,000 cubic second feet) has been fixed with a view to allowing to the companies on that side the amounts for which they now have works under construction,
which are:
Canadian Niagara Power Company.. ..	9,500 c.s.f.
Ontario Power Company	 12,000 c.s.f.
Electrical Development Company.. .. 11,200 c.s.f. N:agara Falls Park Railway Company 1,500 c.s.f. Welland canal or its tenants (in addition to lock service)	 1,800 c.s.f.
One of the effects of such legislation would be to
give to Canada the advantage of diverting more than 4s diverted in the United States. The advantage is more apparent than real, since the power generated on the Canadian side will to a large extent be transmitted to and used in the United States. In the negotiation of a treaty however, the point should be considered.
That, was one of the matters that were considered when our share of 36,000 feet was decided upon.


Mr. CAHILL:: What is the hon. member quoting from?


Edmund James Bristol: I have just read from a
note of my own made from the report submitted to the United States before the treaty was agreed upon.


Charles A. Stewart: What the hon. member has read has not very much bearing on the present allocation of 36-20.


Edmund James Bristol: It is of interest as showing how the 36,000 feet was arrived at.


Charles A. Stewart: What we are all concerned with is to maintain the position we now take at Niagara, that we are entitled to greater consideration in the distribution of power.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister repeat the statement he made a few minutes ago with reference to the lowering of the water level in lake Erie?
Mr. STEWART, (Edmonton):	I do not
remember referring to lake Erie, but the level is lowest on lake Huron. We have suffered most there. Generally speaking, however, the lowering under normal conditions is well on to three feet on lake Huron.


James Dew Chaplin: I thought I
heard the minister say that on lake Erie it had been thirty-two and a half inches during the past four years.


Charles A. Stewart: There has
been a considerable lowering generally, and the situation is serious. Perhaps no one realizes this more than the shipping interests/ who are suffering most, because at the mo-[*Mr. Bristol.]
ment the power interests are not suffering. They are drawing the usual amount of water, and will continue to do so unless lake Erie should go dry.


Peter McGibbon: Converting the diversion of water into horse-power and deducting the amount of power at present exported to the United 'States, what would be the relative distribution as between Canada and the United States?


Charles A. Stewart: I should not care to discuss that phase of the question, and in any case I think that Canada should take the ground that we will not admit any diversion. We are not asking for compensation; we want to get the water back.


Peter McGibbon: The minister does not understand me. What proportion of power are we actually getting at Niagara, after deducting . the amount which we are now exporting? What share, is due to Canada?


Charles A. Stewart: Because of the fact that the greater flow is on the Canadian side, I could not answer that question offhand. Indeed, I would not venture to discuss it without going thoroughly into the subject with the engineers.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: As a result of that lowering of thirty-two inches to which reference has been made, how much water is added to Chicago?


Mr STETV ART (Edmonton):: Six inches.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: How is that arrived at?


Charles A. Stewart: At the moment they are diverting 9,700 cubic feet of water. That flowing into lake Huron and through the reaches and waterways would increase the depth on this side by six inches; conversely, when it is diverted, there is a lowering to that extent. That is the engineers' statement, not my own.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: Has there been
any discussion of some policy of conservation in connection with this depletion of water?


Charles A. Stewart: As I have
already said, we have refused to listen to any proposals looking to compensation. In my opinion, the first thing for us to do is to get the water back. That is the business of the government. Chicago is more than willing to erect any compensating works, but although I am a layman and not an engineer,
I fail to understand how we could benefit

Chicago Drainage Canal
thereby. I can appreciate the fact that the spring flowage might be held in check by retaining works, but I do not see how any such works could restore six inches of water on this side, which is so important to us. Six inches of water means a great deal to us: it represents the difference between the facility for getting our larger ships up to Montreal and the necessity for having them call at Quebec.


William Findlay Maclean: Up to Toronto
even.


Charles A. Stewart: That may
come later. It is so important that we get the water restored that I do not believe Canada can consider any works by way of compensation for that diversion. I think that is the only position we can take. Chicago is but one municipality, and it must provide itself, as my hon. friend has stated, just as every other municipality has had to provide itself, with adequate works to take care of its sewage, because it is Chicago's main contention that it had to have this water for sanitary and sewage disposal purposes. The canal they want built from Chicago to the gulf of Mexico only entails a flowage of 1,000 cubic feet per second, or one-tenth of what is being taken to-day by the drainage canal. Chicago can have the proposed canal. So Canada is not inflicting any hardship on Chicago by insisting on the restoration of this water. I do not mean to say that reasonable time should not be given Chicago to make other arrangements for handling its sewage, but any unreasonable delay in the restoration of the water should not be countenanced by this government or by any private citizen of Canada. I think that is the position we should take in this very important matter, and that is the position that should be pressed and will be pressed by this government upon the American government. I do not think this is the time to discuss with Chicago or with the United States government compensating works for the diversion of this water.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Charles A. Stewart: Rather I
wouid stress the position we have taken, and the position that we intend to maintain: the return of the water within a reasonable period for the benefit of our shipping along the Great Lakes and, incidentally, for the greater production of power.


James Dew Chaplin: A minute ago
the minister said that there had been no loss by power companies owing to shortage of water. He must know that that is not absolutely correct.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg to
differ with my hon. friend. They are drawing all the water they are entitled to at Niagara.


James Dew Chaplin: But there are
other water powers besides that at Niagara.
Por instance, there is one large power company that uses water viz: the Cataract Power Company. When the water is down in the Welland canal, and boats cannot get through, does the minister mean to say that the government does not stop the waiter going to the Cataract Power Company? In fact the minister must know that the water has been stopped to enable boats to go through the Welland canal.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
going to dispute that point with my hon. friend. I thought he had reference to the point raised that there had been a reduction of the 36,000 cubic feet per second that we are using at Niagara. There has been no reduction.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister
said that the power companies had not been affected by any shortage of water. I say that that is not absolutely correct, because I have mentioned a specific case where a power company was very much affected, and rightly so, because navigation first had to be looked after.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend is probably correct there. That was not brought to my attention. I was speaking primarily of the power companies on the international reach.


James Dew Chaplin: The Cataract
Power Company throw their water over the Niagara escarpment the same as the Niagara companies do.
Mr. STEWART .(Edmonton):	That is,
they use the surplus water from the canal?


James Dew Chaplin: Yes; but the
water to create the power is thrown over the Niagara escarpment at Decew Falls.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Edmund James Bristol: The extract I read was
from a report of the International Joint Commission at the time the treaty was under consideration.


Charles A. Stewart: In all probability if we are to have cycles of this character we will have lowering of the lake levels. I have discussed the matter with eminent engineers, and they say that perhaps some steps will have to be taken to preserve the levels
Chicago Drainage Canal

of the Great Lakes altogether irrespective of the Chicago diversion; that is, assuming this diversion was stopped and the water turned into the Great Lakes, there would still be necessity to take those steps. I think that is apparent from the very low levels at the present moment. If such remedial works were undertaken there would be an equal allocation of the cost between the two countries, and a study of the subject could very well be made. But it is evident to my mind that the municipality of Chicago is seizing upon every possible excuse to delay remedial works of their own to take care of their sewage in order that the diversion may continue, and I am exceedingly anxious first of all to get this out of *the way; then we can discuss whatever remedial works may be necessary to preserve the lake levels.	,


Arthur Meighen: How often do these cycles occur?


Charles A. Stewart: I have before me a report dating one hundred years back, but looking up the records I find that in 1895 the lake levels were as low then as they were last year. If we are not mistaken about the prospects for this year, the levels will go still lower. Consequently we will have to meet the difficulty.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: How many years
did that continue after 1895?


Charles A. Stewart: The low
point was in 1895: It was undoubtedly one of the dry cycles. I will get that information for my hon. friend. In the opinion of some engineers, possibly the lakes will never go back to their old level, but in 1895 they were down very low. The levels were restored during periods of excessive rainfall. But transportation is becoming so important and we have so much money invested in it, that undoubtedly some measures will have to be taken to tide us over the dry cycles when the lake levels run low and interfere so seriously with navigation.
May I say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that we intend to press for the restoration of the water to the Great Lakes levels? In my opinion that is the paramount duty of the government. Not only are the municipalities along the lake shores of Canada suffering, but the lakefront municipalities in the United States are also suffering, and they also are pressing their claims upon the government of the United Slates and insisting that it deal summarily with this very serious matter and name a definite date for the full restoration of this water to the Great Lakes system.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks may I refer the hon. minister to Hansard of February 24? At page 1284, in answering a question respecting the Chicago drainage canal, he intimated that Chicago would be allowed until 1935 to complete such modern sewage disposal works as would enable it to dispense with the reversed flow from lake Michigan down the Chicago drainage canal. In other words, instead of treating its sewage as every modern and progressive city is doing, Chicago is relying still on the old-fashioned flushing system which sweeps the sewage back through the Illinois river down to the Mississippi. These disposal works are made the condition, as I understand it, of the permit to use lake water, and I judge from what the hon. minister said on February 24, that he and the government acquiesce in the proposal that Chicago shall have until 1935 to dispense with the necessity of taking water from lake Michigan.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon.
friend will look up the statement preceding the definition, he will find that we secured from the Secretary of State of the Unitea States a statement as to what that permit meant, and at what date they would undertake to have the works under way; but there is no acquiescence by Canada.


George Reginald Geary: All right, so far that is satisfactory. I wanted to know what the position of the government is. If the government have not already acquiesced in that, they surely see the danger and should take some definite step towards preventing the diversion of any water at all. May I point out that if this situation is acquiesced in we are faced with a new proposal, that the states bordering the Mississippi river have joined together in a very strong organization which is likely to overpower the government in Washington, so that even if the Chicago sewage disposal system is completed in 1935, this government may rest assured that that is not the end of the diversion of water from lake Michigan by Chicago. The power question is inconsiderable; they only develop 1,000 horse-power at the end of the Chicago drainage canal, but the question of continuing that drainage canal to make it connect with the deeper water of the Mississippi river is a live subject in these Mississippi states, and if the project is not scotched now it will reach the point where neither the United States nor anyone else can stop it. I call my hon. friend's attention to that position because I want to know what he has done

Chicago Drainage Canal
and what he is going to do. We have heard of close contact and of watchful waiting, in different comunications, but it seems to me that so far as the minister is able to give it to the House this afternoon, masterly inactivity is a proper description of the government's position. I think we should take such steps, either through the joint waterways commission or through the British ambassador at Washington or in some definite way, as will put this whole matter up for discussion and settlement immediately. One does not worry only about the present situation; it is bad enough, but the continuance of withdrawal of water from the Great Lakes at Chicago to make a channel down the Mississippi river is fraught with the greatest danger to navigation on the Great Lakes. I hope the minister will be able to tell us what he has done through the British ambassador or otherwise, and what representations have been made with a view to the immediate settlement of this whole question.


Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I do not desire to prolong this debate in any way, Mr. Speaker, but I want to put myself on record this afternoon in a very few words. I want to say that I am not quite in accord with the resolution as worded. I imagine also that there is a little bit more politics in it than there should be, but apart altogether from that I agree with a great deal that has been said by hon. members opposite. I will go this far, and say that I think the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) deserves a great deal of credit for bringing this matter up again. It is a question that concerns not only the people of Ontario but the people of the whole Dominion as well. In Ontario we hear it discussed more and more all the time; it is getting more vital, and people are becoming more insistent in demanding that some solution of this difficulty be found.
Mr, CHAPLIN (Lincoln): Is that why politics come into it?


Frederick George Sanderson: I simply said that the wording of the resolution was a little more political than was necessary. I cannot conceive of the hon. member who asked me that question considering any matter in this House without political bias. As a new member I am prepared to discuss any matters in this House fairly at all times, and I hope in an unbiased way. As I said before, some way must be found to stop this steal of water. We have had) various opinions expressed as to the amount of water Chicago is taking, and a difference of
opinion also as to the amount the level of the lakes has been lowered. Until this after^ noon I had not heard that the Chicago diversion was lowering the lake level only to the extent of six inches. I have heard the figure given as being all the way from one to three feet. I do not know which figure is correct, but altogether apart from that question, and the amount of water being taken, it is conceded by the United States government that Chicago is practically stealing that water. If that be so, why can there not be some solution found which will stop this steal? Why cannot the government of the day in some way at least restore the water? I am not going into the question of compensation; I am only a layman and my mind does not run in that direction, but I want to view this matter in a common sense way, and I must say that I am very glad the minister expressed himself as he did thus afternoon. I would have preferred if he had gone further and been more explicit as ito what the government intended to do to solve this question, and I hope that as the session goes on the minister will take this House into his confidence further. This is an international question now; it vitally affects the Dominion of Canada, and I hope that some solution will be found whereby the water taken from the Great Lakes may be restored. If it is possible to make the city of Chicago pay, damages should be collected. They have done wrong; their courts have practically said that they are in the wrong. I will! not take up the time of the House longer, other than to say that as a new member from Ontario, I am vitally interested in the settlement of this question by this government as speedily as possible.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, this question has been before parliament during each of the last four sessions, and possibly previously, but as far as I can observe we are not one whit farther towards obtaining-or indeed towards the assertion of-our rights than we were when the question was first mooted. Though I have heard every discussion to date I have never yet discovered in any of them an attempt to make this great issue a subject of party controversy in Canada. If the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) can so define the present discussion, I congratulate him upon the fact that his perspicacity is at least that much greater than mine. We want in this House, in a question concerning our relations with foreign nations, to strengthen so far as
187G
Chicago Drainage Canal

possible the hand of the government of the day, whatever the government may be. I know that if I were a member of the government, the stronger Canada's case was put, the more frequently it was presented, the more determinedly it was emphasized and insisted upon in the House of Commons of this country, the better I would be pleased. By that means the government is in a position to represent the feelings of this country to the authorities of the United States. I do not know that the people of the United States or the government of the United States are interested very much in the rights of Canada; we are supposed to look after those rights ourselves, but I do know that they are interested in the goodwill of Canada and in the goodwill of the Canadian people, The goodwill of the Canadian people is an asset to the United States of America, and an asset which they as a shrewd nation will not very readily impair or lose. Consequently, it is of importance that the people of Canada get to know just what is and has been going on, that the whole people get to understand it, and, getting to understand it, that they express themselves freely and strongly in order that the United States may apprehend just what they have to lose by persistence in their present conduct. We have to do only with the government of the United States; we have not to do with the city of Chicago. It is well to begin with, therefore, to understand what is the position.
We have nothing that can be called a legal right in the sense that we have a right enforceable in a court. The only reason we cannot call it a legal right is that two nations are concerned instead of one. Over a score of years we have lost an asset of the Canadian people, an asset of comparatively little value twenty or thirty or forty years ago, but of a value increasing in geometrical proportion every year since, an asset which now is one of the most prized of our possessions. That has been taken from us year by year by the city of Chicago, a city of the United States of America. That asset is the water of the Great Lakes system, taken from us, first in substantial but relatively small quantity, and now taken from us to the extent of 9.700 cubic feet per second; I use that figure because it is the figure authorized by the United States Supreme Court in a judgment addressed to the city of Chicago. I cannot help but bow in admiration before the consummate assertion of self-right by a court of the United States calmly to grant to one of the cities of the United States,

without in any way speaking to its neighbour, Canada, the right to take our property.


William Findlay Maclean: On the authority of a department of the government of the United States.


Arthur Meighen: But they have done so
to the extent of 9,700 cubic feet per second. Nor have we any very firm ground for asserting that the Chicago drainage district is confining its depredations to the limitations fixed by the Supreme Court of the United States. I do not know myself whether it is or not, but if my life depended upon a guess, I would put the extent of the diversion away above the 9,700 cubic feet. That that quantity is taken goes, of course, without saying, but the extent of it is very hard to fix definitely. The United States agree that it reduces the level of our lakes by six inches. Even if that is to be accepted, it undoubtedly means the loss of millions per year to this country. We know, however, that our lakes have fallen to the extent of 32, if not 36, inches, and very few of the Canadan people can ever be brought to believe that that fall of 32 to 36 inches is attributable only to the extent of one-sixth to a diversion of approximately 10,000 cubic feet per second.
Now were this a matter of merely legal right between one party and another in the same country, it could very quickly be settled.


Charles A. Stewart: May I just interject, lest my hon. friend be under a misapprehension, that I was quoting the figures of our own engineers as to the six-inch reduction in depth?


Arthur Meighen: The minister stated that the United States admitted that amount.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but I
juet wanted now to point out that it was not the figure of the American engineers, but of our own Canadian engineers, that the diversion of 10,000 cubic feet per second would lower the Great Lakes level by six inches.


Arthur Meighen: Would lower it six inches in how long a time? Certainly if it is continued year after year it will lower it more than if continued for only a month. I do not know just what the minister means. What I stated was his own words.


Charles A. Stewart: May I make myself clear to my right hon. friend? If you returned the diversion of 9,700 cubic feet per second-say 10,000 in round figures-into the Great Lakes system it would raise the depth of the water from lake Huron eastward all through the system by six inches.

Chicago Drainage Canal
1S77


Arthur Meighen: In what length of time?


Charles A. Stewart: The moment you turn it in and the water goes down through the system.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Returning the water over how long a period? For a year?


Charles A. Stewart: As fast as
that volume of water reached the St. Lawrence, it would raise the level and would continue to keep it raised so long as that water flowed in. If you take the water out, the level drops by six inches.


Arthur Meighen: Chicago Drainage Canal

It does not disturb the principle of common justice and common sense that I sought to explain before. It may be they were doing this against their right, it may be we did not take the pains to force them to contract themselves out of it. That may be but surely, it would appeal to the simple mind of any person that unless we contracted ourselves out of our right, we still have that right. We did not contract ourselves out of our right, consequently it does not lie in the mouth of the United States to say to us "Though we were taking this water that we had no right to in 1899, the fact that you made a treaty and did not bring us to terms makes that diversion permanent." It does not lie in their mouths to say that at all. They would have to establish that in that treaty we extended to them a privilege beyond the bounds of the common law and the comity of nations. There is nothing at all in that contention.


Charles A. Stewart: May I make that statement of mine a little clearer, because I do not want my right hon. friend to be under a misapprehension. That argument was made by the legal representatives of Chicago in the Supreme court. It has not been asserted by anyone representing the American government. That is the point I wanted to make.


Arthur Meighen: I am glad to hear it has not been addressed to Canada and I hope it never will be. I do not know what argument the United States could advance in defence of their conduct at all. I am quite aware that in the United States there is considerable opposition to this diversion. I believe the western states are as a whole opposed, and as far as I know the state of New York is, generally speaking, opposed. The Mississippi states favour it. I do not believe in a policy which seeks, so far as Canada is concerned, to add to the strength of the opposition in localities of the United States. That is for the United States to look after. We look to the United States to stand up and do justice to this country. And I do not believe either in waiting in the anterooms of the Supreme Court of the United States-waiting there to see what the United States courts are going to decide about a matter in respect of which they have no jurisdiction, a matter in respect of which at least our jurisdiction is co-equal with their own.
The hon. member who brings in the resolution says we ought to go to Great Britain. The treaty is made, he says, between Great

Britain and the United States. We ought to go to Great Britain and call upon her to enforce this treaty, of course for the benefit of our country. Well, that is a subject upon which one wants the fullest information before venturing upon very deep discussion. Let me say this: I have not up to now seen evidence adduced on this subject to show me that we have yet reached the stage where we can justly call upon Great Britain to take any steps in this matter. It seems to me we must exhaust every remedy first before we can go there. I do not think we are in any strong position to go to Great Britain and ask her to interfere in these relations at the present time. Great Britain as such has nothing herself to gain. We have very much to gain. We have very much at stake. I do not think that we have done very much of late to put us in a position to ask her to step in at this stage and help us out of this difficulty. It seems to me before we get to that point we ought to exhaust this remedy at least: We ought to see to it that the tribunal already established has the case before it. That tribunal of course is the International Joint Commission. I cannot see how the United States could even refer this question to the International Joint Commission, but at least they could be put in the position where they would have to refuse. I do not know what they could put behind their contention to warrant its reference there. Still I do not see how, without exhausting the powers given us before that tribunal we could go to the foot of the throne and ask for the intervention of Great Britain. Such is the situation as it presents itself to me.
Let me say that protests go a certain distance. Keeping in close contact is of course worth while. Watchful waiting sometimes has to be suffered. But all these things do not get us very far-at least they have brought us but a very short distance up to the present time. All that has happened so far is this: We have had to dig down in our pockets at the expense and the sweat of the Canadian people and atone and make up for what the United States has, wholly illegally and without shadow of right, taken from us. There is where we are now. What should be done is this: We should get into a position where the United States would be at our door rather than us at theirs, and we should at, as early a date as possible get this matter before the only tribunal which has any jurisdiction or any appropriateness as an arbitral tribunal in the premises. I do not feel myself quite patient enough to wait for the expiration of that long period mentioned in the judgment

Private Bills Committee
of the Supreme Court of the United States, when possibly Chicago will find herself pleased to establish a modem system of sanitation and to return to us at least some of the water to which she never had any right. I agree wholly with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) that if we sit down quietly and abide by that judgment as though it were given by a tribunal that had authority over us, we have just as much hope as we had ten years ago of being in a better position ten years hence than we are to-day, and just as much hope of having this matter entirely righted. We cannot be satisfied to await that event. Whatever can be done should be done now. I have indicated the lines upon which I think we ought to proceed, and I can assure the House that the government will have every endorsation and assistance that can come from this side in the prosecution of a solution of the question along those lines.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Speaker-
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to rule.
Thursday, March 25, 1926