1929-03-04

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved:: That a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours that this house has added the name of Mr. MacLaren to act on the part of the House of Commons as a member of the joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many hogs were slaughtered in the recent hog cholera epidemic in Essex county?
2.	How many hogs were immunized or treated ?
3.	What is the policy of the department relative to reimbursement?
4.	When is it expected, the vote having been exhausted, that reimbursement of losses will commence ?
5.	What is the approximate loss to the hog raiseTs?
6.	What is the approximate loss to the country in, (a) salaries; (b) expenses; (c) allowances made to farmers; (d) other allowances or expenditures?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	6,318.
2.	11,736.
3.	In order to prevent tihe spread of infection -hogs which are infected or are suspected of being infected with hog cholera and those which are in actual contact with infected hogs on the same premises are ordered to be slaughtered and the carcasses burned or deeply buried.
The Minister of Agriculture -may order compensation to be paid for hogs ordered to be slaughtered.
The hogs are valued by the inspector, the maximum valuation allowed under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act being $50 for a pure bred registered hog and $15 for a grade hog. The compensation payable is two-thirds of the valuation placed upon the hog by the Inspector.
No compensation is payable for hogs which have died and compensation may be withheld if the owner has violated the hog cholera regulations.
The veterinary inspector may at his discretion serum treat and quarantine hogs on 7S594-394
infected premises, which have not been in direct contact with diseased hogs, provided they have normal -temperatures, and can be fitted for the block within a period of three months.
These hogs may only be removed for slaughter by license and no compensation is paid for them.
4.	As soon as further funds are made available.
5.	The total of the valuations placed on hogs slaughtered is $67,164. The total amount awarded in compensation is $44,776. Accordingly the loss to the hog raisers on account of animals slaughtered presumably amounts to $22,388.
6.	Assuming that the words "loss to the country" mean "cost to the country" the answer is as follows, (a) $5,937; (lb) $8,038; (c) $44,776; (d) $7,100.


IMMIGRATION-BRITISH ISLES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. DE-SLAURIERS:
1.	How many young immigrants from the British Isles entered Canada during the fiscal year 1927-28?
2.	What was the cost, per capita, of said young immigrants?
3.	What share was assumed by the Canadian government in the -agreement concluded between Great Britain, Canada -and certain provinces in connection with the $5,000,000 to be expended during the period of ten years, and with the object of allowing young immigrants between the ages of 14 and 20 to settle on lands in Canada?
4.	What provinces are especially interested in said agreement?
5.	What was the per capita cost in cash, assistance or otherwise to the Canadian government for the 8,500 harvesters of 1928?
6.	How many of them settled in this country?
Mr. FORKE:: 1.	The total number of British Juvenile immigrants was 2,070.
2.	Approximately $45.
3.	Canada's maximum advances in loans under the boys' land settlement scheme are not to exceed $2,000,000 for the ten-year period covered by the agreement.
4.	Ontario, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
5.	No cost to the federal government.
6.	Upwards of 2,000.


Mr. BARBER:: How many Japanese entered Canada during the calendar years 1927 and 1928, (a) as immigrants, male and female; (b) as other than immigrants?
Questions


Mr. FORKE:: (a) Calendar	Adult	Adult	Children under 18	TotalYears	Males	Females	Years	1927.. .	. 124	285	102	3111928.. .	. 149	272	114	535Ob) Fiscal	Adult	Adult	Children under 18	TotalYears	Males	Females	Years	1926-27.. .	.. 751	201	248	1,2001927-28..	.. 644	165	214	1,023
The non-immigrant figures for the two fiscal years cover only persons with Canadian residence returning from visits abroad. Returns for tourists and persons in transit are not compiled and non-immigrant figures are not available by calendar years.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SURVEY WORK
Mr. KENNEDY:: What survey work has been done on Peace pass, the Pine pass or the Monkman pass, by the Department of Railways and Canals or the Canadian National railways during 1928, with reference to ascertaining the relative merits of each as a route for a Pacific railway outlet for the Peace River country?


Mr. DUNNING:: Reconnaissance surveys have been made by ithe Canadian National railways during 1928:
1st, for a line intended to go through the Peace pass on the north side of the Peace river in the area of the Peace River block; also
2nd, for a line between Pouce Coupe and Hudson Hope and Fort St. John; and
3rd, for a line between Monkman pass and Pouce Coupe.


POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	How long has the post office savings bank division been in operation?
2.	How many post offices in each of the last five years have taken savings deposits?
3.	How many post offices are there in Canada where the postmaster or postmistress are getting over $200 a year?
4.	What has been the aggregate amount placed in the post office savings bank during each of the last five years?
5.	What was the highest interest ever paid?
6.	When was it reduced?
7.	What was the reason for the reduction?
8.	What is the maximum any person can deposit annually?
9.	What is the maximum any one can have in post office savings, and on which they can receive interest?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Since April, 1868.
2.	1924, 1,345; 1925, 1,369; 1926, 1,365; 1927, 1,367; 1928, 1,355.
3.	5,900.
LMr. Barber.)
4.	1924, $7,118,912; 1925, $4,089,059.97; 1926, $3,508,288.52; 1927, $3,178,563.92; 1928, $3,090,163.81.
5.	4 per cent.
6.	October, 1889, reduced to 3J per cent; July, 1897, reduced to 3 per cent.
7. Recommendation of the Minister of Finance in each case.
8.	$1,500.
9.	$5,000.


EXPORTATION OF LIQUOR TO UNITED STATES
Mr. SPOTTON:: Does the government contemplate any action at this session to stop the export of liquor to the United States as a result of the visit of the commission from the United States in regard to this matter?


Mr. EULER:: This question involves a
matter of policy, and, therefore, is one for consideration.


DUMPING DUTY
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	Did the government by order in council authorize the Department of Customs to impose dump duties on fruit and vegetables under section 43 of the Customs Act during the years 1926, 1927 and 1928?
2.	Have any applications been received for refund of dump duties collected under the said order in council?
3.	If so, in how many oases and what is the total amount?
4.	What was the grounds, and upon whose advice have the said refunds (if any) been made?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	No. Orders in council were passed under the provisions of section 47A of the Customs Act, now section 43, authorizing the minister to value fruit and vegetables for duty.
2,	3, and 4. No information available, without examination of all claims for refund filed within the last three years which number 163,614.


POST OFFICES-NON-ACCOUNTING
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRASER.:
1.	How many non-accounting post offices are there in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	How many of these non-accounting post offices in each of the provinces have a revenue of $25 per annum or less?
Mr. VENIOT:: Ontario	
925	64Quebec	
1,249	159Nova Scotia	
1,398	327New Brunswick	
818	172Prince Edward Island	
51	5Manitoba	
390	48Saskatchewan	
650	96Alberta	
448	91British Columbia	
430	22Yukon	
9	2
Unopposed Motions for Papers


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. STEVENS:: For a copy of the government engineer's report regarding the removal of the Burnaby shoal, Vancouver harbour, and a statement showing the tenders received. Also a copy of the successful tender, together with a copy of the contract. Also a copy of all correspondence passing between the government or any official of the government and the successful tenderers.


BENACADIA POND POSTMASTER
Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents, in possession of the government, relating to the dismissal of James
Smith, postmaster at Benacadia Pond, Cape Breton.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SPECIAL FREIGHT TARIFF
Mr. PARENT:: For a copy of requests and representations made to the government and to the Canadian National Railways, relative to the city of Quebec sharing with the maritime provinces the special freight tariff rate granted said provinces on the railway line formerly known as the Intercolonial railway.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. EVANS:: For a copy of the agreement between the Dominion government and the government of Saskatchewan, together with a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the installation of The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to take the place of the Provincial Police of Saskatchewan.


SALE OF LANDS
Mr. CAMPBELL:: For a copy af all letters, telegrams, correspondence, and any other documents in the possession of the government or any department thereof, in connection with the sale of section 26, township 32, range 32, west of the first meridian.


POSTMASTER-SIMCOE, ONTARIO
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: For a copy of all orders in council, reports, recommendations, correspondence, telegrams, resolutions and other documents on file in any department of the government or the Civil Service Commission, in any way relating to the appointment, cancellation of appointment or dismissal of George E. Whitaker, and the appointment of Charles R Bowyer to the position of postmaster at Sirncoe, Ontario.


PACIFIC GREAT EASTERN RAILWAY EXTENSION
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between any
person or persons and the Department of Railways or any any other department of the government, and between the Canadian National Railways and the British Columbia government, and between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the British Columbia government, and between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, with reference to the survey which will be undertaken jointly by the Canadian National Railway, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the British Columbia government. into the resources of the country which conceivably might be served by any extension oi the Pacific Great Eastern Railway.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that he is asking for the production of correspondence between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the British Columbia government. I do not think it is within the power of parliament to ask either of these parties to table their correspondence, and I would ask the hon. member to drop those words from his motion and we will gladly produce the rest of the correspondence.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is agreeable to me.


ALBERTA RAILWAYS ACQUISITION
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and other documents exchanged between any person or persons and the Department of Railways and Canals or any other department _ of the government, and between the^ Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Alberta government, and between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, with reference to the joint purchase of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway, the Pembina Valley Railway, the Central Canada Railway and the Alberta and Great Waterways Railway, in the province of Alberta, since November 1, 1927.


Charles Avery Dunning: I urge the same objection to this motion as I did with the previous one, as correspondence between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Alberta government is being asked for. I would also point out that the date November 1, 1927, overlaps with a previous return, and if the hon. member will withdraw that part of his motion, I will undertake to bring down to the house everything that has not previously been brought down.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: That is agreeable to me.


BOARD OF GRAIN COMMISSIONERS-DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, and other documents passing between the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Department of Justice, or between the Department of Justice and the Board of Grain Commissioners during the year 1927.

Unopposed Motions for Papers


CONFEDERATION BUILDING
Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return showing the specifications upon which tenders were called for the new confederation building on Wellington street, Ottawa, together with a copy of the successful tender and a copy of the contract awarded.


RADIO BROADCASTING
[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Stevens:
For a copy of the agreement made between *Canada and the United States or between officials of the Canadian government and officials of the government of the United States regarding radio broadcasting, together with a copy of all notes or correspondence of any kind passing between the Canadian government or any official of the Canadian government and the government of the United States or any official of the government of the United States during the past eighteen months on this subject.
Henry Herbert Stevens: This motion was drafted and handed in before the announcement was made that an arrangement had been arrived at between the Canadian government and the government of the United States. I would ask that it be dropped, if the government would be good enough to lay on the table in the usual way a copy of the arrangements between the two authorities. It was not the two governments; it was officials of the governments who came to an understanding.


James Alexander Robb: All my hon, friend requires is a copy of the agreement?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


James Alexander Robb: I will direct the attention of
the officials to that.
Motion dropped.


DUMPING DUTIES-REFUNDS
Harry James Barber: For a return showing a list of all refunds granted during the years 1926, 1927 and 1928 of dumping duties collected by virtue of orders in council passed under section 43 of the Customs Act as applied to the importation of fruits and vegetables.


William Daum Euler: There would ordinarily be no
objection whatever to bringing down this return, were it not for the enormous amount of work involved in its preparation. To obtain the information required by the hon. gentleman would necessitate the examination of about 160.000 claims. Perhaps my hon. friend will be satisfied if I say to him that,
fMr. E. J. Garland.]
according to the recollection of the Commissioner of Customs, no such refunds whatever were made, and under the circumstances he may be content to let the motion drop.


Harry James Barber: Yes.
Motion dropped.


EXTRA TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION
Edward Joseph Garland: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence and/or documents of any character passing between the government of Canada and the government of Great Britain or any department thereof, in regard to the following resolutions, which passed both the senate and the house o,f commons of Canada:

1.	The resolution passed in 1920 which reads as follows: "Any enactment by the parliament of Canada otherwise within the legislative authority of that parliament shall operate and be deemed to have operated extra territorially according to its intention in like manner and to the same extent as if enacted by the parliament of the United Kingdom."
2.	The resolution passed in 1924, which reads as follows: "An enactment intra vires of the parliament of Canada if expressed to operate extra territorially shall be deemed to have had that operation in so far as it is a law for or ancillary to the peace, order and good government of Canada."


James Alexander Robb: In the absence of the Prime Minister, may I ask my hon. friend to allow the motion to stand? It may involve the permission of the government of the United Kingdom.
Motion stands.


BRITISH PREFERENCE
Milton Neil Campbell: For a copy of all orders in council, letters, telegrams, correspondence, and any other documents exchanged between the government of Canada, the British High Commissioner and the British Federation of Industries, dealing with the regulation effective February 1st last and which regulation calls for fifty per cent empire labour and materials in goods entitled to British preferential rates.
H'on. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance): The government offer no objection to this resolution, but I must put in the reservation that we should have the consent of the British High Commissioner before tabling the correspondence.


Milton Neil Campbell: Might I have the
papers, then, any correspondence with the British High Commissioner being eliminated. There would be no objection to Lihling the correspondence with the British Federation of Industries.

Natural Rasourr.es-Mr. Evans


James Alexander Robb: How does my hon. friend know the British Federation of Industries has no objection?


Milton Neil Campbell: The British Federation
of Industries is just a private organization. Surely there is no objection to tabling any correspondence with them.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: It is understood that the motion is carried with the reservation as stated by the Minister of Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question based on a statement made in the current number of the Canadian Congress Journal, the official magazine of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. In a short paragraph dealing with the Old Age Pensions Act, the journal states:
Under provisions of the act the federal government has extended its application to the Yukon and last month further extended it to the Northwest Territories. This laitter action was necessary in order to take care of many early pioneers of that district now forming part of the province of Manitoba which until a few years ago was within the northwest territory. Not having actually resided under the jurisdiction of the Manitoba government for twenty years these men who have done so much for the upbuilding of Canada would otherwise have been denied the payment of their full pensions. Another interesting sidelight to this extension of the old age pension to the Northwest Territories is that, as Eskimos are British subjects, and being citizens of Canada they will be entitled to the receipt of pensions after having passed the age of seventy.
I am not so much interested in the Eskimos and the Northwest Territories, but I should like to ask the minister if it is a fact that the Old Age Pensions Act is now in operation in the Yukon? My information is that it is not and that no pensions have been paid or will be paid there.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour) :: The commissioner for the Yukon, before he left Ottawa, signed an agreement with the federal government to put the Old Age Pensions Act into effect in the Yukon, but it has' to be ratified by the Yukon council. This has not yet been done.


NATURAL RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth:
That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.
And on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie:
That the motion be amended by striking out the words "natural resources" where they occur in said motion and by inserting in lieu thereof the words "water-powers".
John Evans: Mr. Speaker, in addition to what I said the other evening, now that development is being carried on all over Canada in regard to water-powers, minerals and oil lands, it is more than ever necessary that the house adopt as a principle the spirit of the resolution. It is only a few years ago since the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, which at present is furnishing a precedent to the whole world in the matter of power supply at cost, had to purchase those valuable water rights at enormous cost. The plant and water rights at Niagara falls had to be purchased from a private corporation. This was property that had been alienated from the people for a mere trifle. The natural resources such as coal, for example, should never have been allowed to fall into private hands, but should have been developed in the interests of the people. New Zealand furnishes a splendid example in that respect. That country owns and operates several of the mines in New Zealand, and the people there are getting their coal at cost price.
To come back to the principle of the resolution, when I first went to western Canada and settled near Saskatoon, I found that the Dominion government had granted some two million acres of land around what is now the city of Saskatoon to what was known then as the Temperance Colonization Society. I had in consequence to go further back from the railroad than otherwise would have been necessary because all the free homesteads between where I settled and the railway had been taken up. This large tract of land that I speak of was given away practically for a song, and under the agreement which

Natural Resources-Mr. Evans
the society had with the government, they had to locate a settler on each section of land within three years. They brought out a good many ne'er-do-wells from Ontario-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Evans: It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, that there were still a good many left behind. I believe that most of them who came out there were ministers' sons, but that does not count. At all events, after they had exhausted the little loan which the society was allowed to advance to them, they simply pulled up stakes and went away, and any of us who acquired one of those homesteads had to pay five hundred dollars or so, or go further out.
Even after 1896 the same practice continued, but on a much larger scale. This gave rise to suspicion, and a great many of our government heads at that time were brought under suspicion. The Saskatchewan Valley Land Company was a case in point where a tract of land comprising almost as much as an empire was given away. They only paid one dollar per acre for the land, and they were also given the privilege of selling at an enhanced price by giving the settler a free homestead alongside-a privilege which they got from the federal government. Immense areas were disposed of in that way.
When confederation was first mooted, the railway question was the chief problem of government. Indeed, sir, it seems to be still a thorny problem for this government, although our financial ability to cope with it is much greater now than it was then. One of the conditions of the provinces uniting was that a transcontinental railway should be built, and I want to point out that the burden of the construction of this great highway fell particularly on western Canada. The government gave away land that amounted in value, I believe, to more than the whole plant of the Canadian Pacific Railway was worth at any time. The west was not able to, defend itself at that time against these injustices, and the whole burden of industry and railway construction fell practically on that part of Canada. Every transcontinental line was built "for the people of the west," to let the politicians tell the tale. The people of the maritime provinces were not even content with a railway which gave them connection with the rest of Canada. Ontario got railways built through a wilderness as big as an empire, at the expense of the people of western Canada. It was really the farmer, with his wife and family, who by sweated 
labour had to pay the taxes on a billion dollars' worth of land in order to construct roads to get at the sidings of the Canadian Pacific at that time, and to construct schools for their own use.
Since then, this problem has been intensified by the granting of water-powers to private interests, and this has brought another set of privilege seekers to parliament asking favours in this respect. It is very likely- this is more than a guess on my part-that campaign funds are furnished sufficient to elect the henchmen they can trust in this respect. One would think that Canadian statesmen of to-day would hurry to settle this vexed question, and relieve themselves from any suspicion that might arise in the matter of the disposal of these water-power sites and other natural resources. Not only has the great water-power site of the Seven Sisters falls in Manitoba been disposed of, but the great riches of the Flin-Flon areas are now to be exploited for twenty-five years without the people getting any benefit from their God-given resources. The people in that case are simply being plundered, robbed of their own possessions, and this is being done without making any exaction of the company as to permanency of employment, or even as to the rate of wages to be paid in that area.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: For the sake of accuracy, may I ask my hon. friend if it is a fact that all the minerals of the Flin-Flon area are to be exploited without recompense?


John Evans: It is true respecting some
concessions which the present company has in part developed.


Malcolm McLean: A small part
of it.


John Evans: I do not know how small
it is. Nobody can tell yet what that area comprises.


Malcolm McLean: Does the hon.
gentleman apply his remarks to the major part of the Flin-Flon area in the province of Saskatchewan ?


John Evans: What I was going to say
was-


Malcolm McLean: That is good.


John Evans: I was going to say that not long hence labour troubles will arise, expenses will be created, and then what? All I can say is that we are increasing the vote each year for the militia and defence. Troubles are

Natural Resources-Mr. Emns
going to arise in those areas, just as they have done with the British Empire Steel Company, and how are you going to settle them? The west is still bearing the burden of all these things, as well as the burden of the railway construction which formed the basis of confederation, and yet freight rates are higher in western Canada to-day than in any other part of the country. At confederation there was practically no sentiment for union in the maritime provinces or in the other provinces. It was virtually a case of necessity. I question whether to-day there is very much national unity to be found in this Dominion. I go further, Mr. Speaker. The way things are, and judging by the legislation emanating from this house, in all seriousness I say there is not much of a spirit of Canadian unity exhibited here. It does seem to me that the part played by certain areas through their representation in this house is simply a case of grab and grab -get what you can. The Duncan commission was clearly the outcome of party expediency. Its recommendations were carried out for the same reason. Coming back to the west, I understand that by an agreement between the Dominion government, the Alberta government and the Hudson's Bay Company, the company agreed to release certain areas of land in that province, to be later selected from a list that the Minister of the Interior would furnish to the company. Where are these lands to be located? In Saskatchewan? If that is true, it simply gives a clue to the reason for dealing with one province at a time, and the injustice will still be perpetuated against Saskatchewan.
On page 583 of Hansard, in referring to the conferences held by the Dominion government with representatives of the provincial governments, the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
This government took the position that the right thing to do was to say that we believed the western provinces should be put as nearly as possible in exactly the position they would hav* been in had they hald their resources from the moment they were created as provinces.
Now, the conditions prevailing at the time that these provinces received partial autonomy in 1905 have nothing to do with the conditions on which they should receive their natural resources to-day. The constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, provides explicitly for just such conditions. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta never entered the union as provinces; they were carved out of
an area known as Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories. These entities entered the Dominion in 1870 by an imperial order in council dated June 23 of that year. It was passed at the request of the Dominion government, which presented an address to Her Majesty requesting that this be done. At that time the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec never made any claim whatsoever to any of the natural resources, they never suggested that Rupert's Land or the Northwest Territories ever belonged to the original confederation. The claim put forward the other day by the member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) and other members from the maritime provinces that they had a proprietary right in the natural resources of western Canada would apply just as well to any part of Australia or to any of the territories in South Africa.
Instead of carrying out its trust obligations, the federal parliament in 1872 passed the Dominion Lands Act, by which it appropriated to itself the lands of these new members of the confederation. The rights of these provinces in the matter of their public domain, minerals, water-powers, timber areas, grazing leases, fisheries, and so on, and their rights in regard to education and taxation were defined by the imperial order in council to which I have referred. The Dominion Lands Act ousted these new members from their rightful place in the confederation. The return of their property now must be made on the basis of the imperial order in council of June 23, 1870, when Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories entered the union as free entities and were entitled to all their rights and possessions just the same as any of the older provinces.
Now, if Rupert's Land and1 the Northwest Territories entered confederation at that time, no denominational rights then existed in those territories.
It was also provided under section 118 of the British North America Act that a subsidy should be paid by the Dominion government to the several provinces for the support of their governments and legislatures. Canada also assumed the debts of the provinces that entered confederation at that time. So it would seem that Rupert's Land and the Northwest Territories entered the Dominion on much more favourable terms than any other province.	.
But this is what I should like to impress on the government now. We must be a confederation of states united by unmistakable

Natural. Resources-Mr. McPherson
constitutional rights or we shall become a series of colonies, more diverse and unrelated as time goes on. I say the Dominion must stop meddling in what is purely local provincial affairs, and I say further that equality of status is the only real 'basis of union.


Mr. E. A. McPHERSON (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention when this debate opened to take part in it, but as it proceeded it became noticeable that the original resolution hardly met with the approval of any section of this house. In fact the mover of the resolution recognized this himself in his opening remarks. Afterwards an amendment was moved, the effect of which was to confine the purpose of the resolution to waterpowers.
The major portion of the debate has not centered around the resolution or the amendment in its widest sense but has been restricted to a subject which is now pretty well understood in this house, namely, the disposal of the Seven Sisters water site in the province of Manitoba. Now, discussing the amendment last Thursday, the mover of the original resolution (Mr. Woodsworth) made a few remarks which I think necessitate my stepping into the debate as a member from Manitoba, and especially to put on record my own views and actions in connection with the Seven Sisters discussion. The hon. member's statement, made on February 28, 1929, is found at page 571 of Hansard. It reads:
I charged that the action of the government was a violation of solemn assurance made to the Manitoba members. This point has been fairly well covered during the course of the discussion. We were told that we would be consulted; I ask if any member of this house says we were consulted when all that has been brought out is that of seventeen members seven were called together in Winnipeg, and the rest of us were not in any way notified.
That statement makes it necessary for me to explain my own position. I cannot agree with the mover of the resolution; although I was not one of the seven members who attended the meeting referred to-in fact I never heard of it until I came to the house- I was consulted by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). I may say that my attention was first called to the problem in Manitoba by an article which appeared in the Winnipeg papers, both the Free Press and the Tribune, on the third and fourth days of February last. I shall quote only the article from the Tribune, inasmuch as there is very little difference between the two newspapers so far as the news report is concerned. In the Winnipeg Tribune of February 4 the following appears:

In answer to a question of Mr. Farmer, M.L. A., Premier Bracken read a telegram sent Thursday to the Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior, in which he requested no action be taken in connection with any lease grant which would prejudice the province's application for the site made more than two years ago.
The government, he said, would strongly object to any commitments being made in favour of a private company.
The impression I received, not so much from that telegram as from the discussion in the house, was that the provincial government at that time had in mind the obtaining of this site for the purpose of developing it themselves in connection with their hydroelectric system throughout the province, from Winnipeg west and southwest. And I heartily agreed with them in retaining it if they thought that they could develop it economically as a part of their system. For that reason I signed the document, which has been referred to by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird), along with other members of the house, asking the Minister of the Interior not to dispose of the site but to retain it for the purposes of the provincial government; and in that document there were added the words, "For the purpose of development with the hydro-electric system".
The hon. member for Nelson .stated that we had signed a round robin. I would point out that, like the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Howden), I nearly rose to my feet to object to this statement, because I have no recollection of signing such a document. I do not think for a moment that the hon. member when making that statement intended to mislead the house; I am absolutely satisfied that he did not. But it is only fair to direct the attention of the house to the fact that the execution and signing of a round robin is an entirely different thing from an instrument signed in the ordinary way. A round robin, as I understand it-and this I think is the impression which generally prevails-is a document signed in a circle in order to hide the identity of the person who raises the question, when there is some doubt as to whether that person should be known or not. Such a person is rather asbamed of his action. Now, there was nothing like that in connection with this document. I do not know where I came on the list, but I presume it was signed as submitted to the various members. This document asked that the site be retained for the purpose of the provincial government in connection with their hydro development, and if that government wanted it for that purpose I was personally pre-

Natural Resources-Mr. McPherson
pared that they should have it. It was purely a question of busmen whether it could be logically and economically developed by them.
I had a good deal to do with the provincial hydro-electric in Manitoba; in fact, I was a member of the legislature at the time it was started, the government having previously purchased power from the Winnipeg power plant. As to whether they could develop this site or not, is I think, a question which we need not discuss to any extent; and as to whether they entered into a reasonable agreement, I am not very much concerned at the moment. That is a question which we in Manitoba will dispose of when the necessity arises, and the opinion of the province as a whole will, I think, ultimately prevail. But so far as we are concerned here, the fact remains that when I left Ottawa I left with the impression that the Minister of the Interior would consult me in some way before there was any definite disposition of the power site to the province in any form, either directly or indirectly. And I may say right now that the minister, so far as I am personally concerned, fulfilled his obligation to the limit. I met the minister in Winnipeg; I have forgotten the date, but it -was the day he arrived from the east, while the Dominion-provincial conference was being held in Ottawa in connection with natural resources. He told me then that he had left the conference in session and that he expected there would be an arrangement whereby the natural resources would be turned over to the province of Manitoba. In view of that situation he asked me what my attitude would be towards the lease of the Seven Sisters. Now my nationality makes me cautious, and I told the minister that I should much prefer waiting until I knew what the terms were before I gave a decided opinion on the matter. A few days or a week afterwards the terms on which the province was to obtain its natural resources became public property, and some time between that and the 10th of August I sent word to the minister that in view of the fact that the natural resources agreement had been amicably settled between the province and the Dominion I personally could see no reason for pressing my views regarding one item of the resources for the purpose of blocking the whole deal. And I withdrew my opposition to the execution of the lease, with one proviso only, namely, that there must be no mistake, if the lease were given to the private company, that it would have to be given on the request of the provincial government and in such a way that there could be no doubt about it, and that the provincial
government would have to assume the whole responsibility. On that ground I withdrew my objection. It is only fair to the minister to make this statement. I never saw him afterwards; I was not at the meeting.
Now as to the resolution as a whole, my reasons for opposing it are, I think, based on good grounds. Ever since I can remember, the province of Manitoba has been demanding the return of its natural resources. That and the Hudson Bay railway had been the two great war cries out there as long as I could remember. We have settled the one, and the other is now in shape to be settled. I personally have supported resolutions demanding the return of these natural resources when such resolutions have come up in the local house while I was a member. I did not think it my duty to interfere in any way with the completion of that deal, which has been so long in coming; to me it was not a hurried affair but the result of years of conferences and negotiations, and it could not be concluded too soon.
The effect of the transfer will be to give us complete control, but I cannot quite understand why the amendment has been proposed. I do not see why, if the original resolution was too broad, they should pick upon the water-powers as the one resource which should be retained under the control of this parliament, and there are two reasons whj' I cannot understand that. The first reason is to a certain extent a matter of record, and I want to read a few words of the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan), delivered in this house on April 19, 1926, and found at page 2569 of Hansard. We were discussing water-powers, and the hon. member said:
It is true that we have vested in the crown, as represented by the Dominion government, large water^powers in the territories which undoubtedly are soon to be vested in the several provincial legislatures, but I will say that 1 do not believe any department of the Dominion government is more honestly and more efficiently managed, supervised and controlled than is the water-powers branch.
That was the opinion expressed by one of the leading members of the official opposition, a gentleman eminently fair in debate, regardless of whether or not we agree with his views. The peculiar situation which arises is that following that statement the mover of this present resolution (Mr. Woodsworth) said:
I quite agree.
I have no doubt the Minister of the Interior will agree with the member for St. Lawrence-St. George, so we have the unique situation of members on this side of the house agreeing
620	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. McPherson
with one of the outstanding members of the opposition and with the mover of this resolution that the water-powers branch is one of the most efficiently managed departments of the government, yet this is the one department which it is desired to put under the control of this house.
Then there is another peculiar situation. I could understand the situation more easily if the amendment had dealt with mines instead of water-powers; as a rule mining is an industry which is developed in a very small way at first. A prospector goes out and makes his location and if he can interest capital the property is developed. The location of a mine has very little to do with its development, if it is rich enough, but the development of water-powers is quite different. Water-powers must foe developed by large corporations or by governments, because the amount of money necessary for such development is very large. In addition, there is no immediate return as there is from a mine; they must depend upon the demand for power, and usually that demand is not nearly sufficient to utilize the initial output of the development, so the people interested in a waterpower development must take means to create a. demand which will utilize the output of that development to its fullest capacity. That means a good deal of work; it is more or less of a speculative proposition and necessitates a large amount of detail work in the way of business management. The amendment to the resolution has been proposed by a representative from the province of Ontario, and I would like to point out that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec have great waterpower resources which have been developed to a large extent. When the province of Manitoba undertakes the development of its water-powers, either through private corporations or under public ownership, it comes in direct competition with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec from an industrial point of view, and the result of this amended resolution would be to give the representatives of competing provinces a control over the development of water-powers in the province of Manitoba. I object to that from the very start, Mr. Speaker; I think it is fundamentally unsound. No matter how honest they may be-and I am not questioning their integrity for a moment-I would consider it poor business if I had to operate a business under the control of an active competitor.
The province of Manitoba has been demanding the return of these water powers, and now the government have entered into an agreement to return not only the Water powers but 
the rest of the natural resources as well. Speaking as a member from the province of Manitoba I strongly object to the resolution both in its original form and as amended. I claim that Manitoba is not still in swaddling clothes; we have grown up. We have waited a long time for the return of these resources, and while some hon. members have expressed doubt as to whether Manitoba can be relied upon upon to exercise proper judgment in the development and disposition of the natural resources, I believe we have >the average, if not better than^the average, class of legislators, and whether the government be Conservative, Liberal, Progressive or Labour, if that government does not use good judgment and carry on the business properly it will get its deserts at the hands of the electors of that province. I want to leave the disposition, management and control of our natural resources in our own hands, and we in Manitoba will be willing to take full responsibility for their proper administration. For that reason I strenuously object to this resolution, which says in effect, "You are not capable of managing your own business."


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not in his seat; he debated this resolution and amendment for a couple of hours and then stated that he thought the discussion had lasted long enough. However, statements made by the Prime Minister render it necessary for me to attempt to convince the house that they are not in accordance with the facts, especially with regard to what the Prime Minister said would be the result if this amendment were adopted, namely, a conflict between eastern and western Canada and the failure to allow the prairie provinces to develop their own resources.
In the first place I feel it necessary to say that the stricture which was passed upon my leader by the Prime Minister is wholly incorrect. The Prime Minister charged that my leader and we on this side of the house were not in favour of a speedy return of these resources, but that statement is not borne out by the facts. Anyone who will read Hansard will see that my leader was referring to the situation created by the Minister of the Interior himself in relation to the Seven Sisters falls. If a tramp who is loitering along the highway suddenly starts to run you naturally want to know the reason for all the hurry, and in any case my leader did not have before him the letter of June 7, which followed the statement made in this house by the minister on June 6.

Natural Resources-Mr. Ryckman
I desire to discuss this matter apart from any consideration of the Seven Sisters power site, as I understand that is something we cannot recover. We have an amendment before us which, in my opinion is sound, good business and within the proper exercise of the discretion of this house. I do not think anyone will say that an important asset such as water-powers should be disposed of by cabinet control and not by the control of parliament. The Prime Minister was of the same mind on February 9, 1924, as appears by the letter which he placed on Hansard, and if we relate the amendment back to the transfer of the natural resources to Manitoba we find that the Prime Minister thought the approval of this house necessary to such a transfer. I am opposed, and I believe other members of this house are opposed, to the alienation of important assets without the consent of parliament. It is admitted by everyone that water-powers are amongst the most valuable assets that the Dominion or the provinces have, and that they should be alienated by a body of men or by the Minister of the Interior, as happened in the case of the Seven Sisters falls, is something to which the people of this country will not submit. It is the opinion of some members of this house that a mistake has been made with regard to this particular water-power site, but I belive it is the unanimous opinion that if the house or the provincial house is to deal with the water-powers of the Dominion or of the province it should be carried out according to some plan which is well understood by parliament, and one in which parliament has the final word. The Prime Minister said that in this case it would relate to only the three prairie provinces; that Ontario and Quebec would not be concerned and that the only control the Dominion had was in relation to the water-powers of the three prairie provinces. I think it is necessary that the Prime Minister should read the British North America Act again, and I think he should consider the water-powers within the railway belt in British Columbia. The question of the disposition of the water-powers of the 'Georgian bay and communicating streams was before this house, I believe two years ago. There is also the question of the Carillon falls, in which the people of Canada are interested.
One thing that surprises me is that not one word has been stated in this debate as to the claim the Prime Minister made as recently as the month of October when a factum was presented on behalf of his government claiming that the Dominion of Canada had control over every water-power in any navigable water in Canada. Navigable water means
navigable in fact, but what does navigable in fact mean? It does not mean that it shall be necesary that a Mauretania can ply through the waters, that some river boat shall find passage, or even a rowboat, but it means the waters where a lone Indian in his canoe can pass and re-pass-that is navigation in fact.
I have before me the brief on the reference which was made to the Supreme Court of Canada, the brief out of which His Lordship the Chief Justice of the supreme court said he did not think anything could have been left. This brief is signed on behalf of the Attorney General of Canada; it is signed Lucien Cannon, N. W. Rowell, Charles Laur-endeau, H. J. Symington, C. P. Plaxton and Vincent C. MacDonald. The claim was made on behalf of the government of the Prime Minister that in any water navigable in fact, such as I have described-if my description is not considered as being correct I will read the long definition appearing in this factum of the Attorney General-in such a stream controlled by the Dominion government, the Dominion government controlled all waterpower and could expropriate it without compensation and go into the business of generating and disposing of electrical power.


Mr. CANNON:: The government never
claimed anything of the kind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He does not know what
he signed.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am afraid' the hon.
Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) signed this without knowing what it was.


Lucien Cannon: I never sign anything
without knowing what I am signing, although that may be the practice of the hon. member.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We will reserve that
argument for another day.
Question 7, page 103 of this factum signed by the Solicitor General, reads as follows:
Has the parliament of Canada legislative power to authorize the construction and operation by the Dominion government of works wholly for power purposes and the acquisition by purchase or expropriation of the lands and property required for the purposes of such works including lands of the crown in the right of a province (a) in interprovincial rivers; and, (b) in provincial rivers?
The Attorney General submits that both branches of this question should be answered in the affirmative.
It was contended in the argument-I listened to it-that by reason of the control of the Dominion over navigable waters it had the right to expropriate without compensation-


Lucien Cannon: For navigation purposes.

Natural Resources- Mr. Ryckman


Edmond Baird Ryckman: -any water-power, and to go, as this question puts it, into the business of distributing hydro-eleetric power throughout the province.


Lucien Cannon: The hon. member could
not have understood the argument.


Mr. ERNST:: Did the Solicitor General?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: If it is necessary I will
bring the argument here where it is positively stated and urged with great ability that that was the situation; that there was not a waterpower in the country, on any stream that was navigable in fact, that the Dominion could not expropriate, without paying compensation, and develop the power and sell it to the people.


Lucien Cannon: Will the hon. member tell us what the decision of the supreme court was in the matter?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: The hon. member is only giving the claim made by the government.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The answer of the supreme court was that these questions framed by the Solicitor General, who never signs anything without knowing what it is, were indefinite and unintelligible.


Mr. CLARK:: Those questions, I presume, were approved by the Prime Minister?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I do not think the Prime Minister, because of his argument when the matter was last before the chair, could have approved them. That being the position, how futile it is for the Prime Minister to say that it is an amazing spectacle to see the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) supporting this amendment. What the real position is has not been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. If the position of the government is as was stated by the Prime Minister, the supreme court has been trifled with, because that is not the case which was put before the supreme court. The Prime Minister says: What an amazing spectacle it is for the hon. member for South Wellington to be found supporting this amendment!


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I did not say
that was an amazing spectacle.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will stand corrected, but I remember the words "amazing spectacle".


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That had reference to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), not the acting leader of the opposition.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can take care of himself. It cannot be said that there is anything out of the way when the claim is made that the house should seek to exercise control over such powers, large and important as they are. That is the purport of the amendment. As to the question of dividing east from west, to drag in an argument of that kind in a case such as this is beneath the contempt of the house. There is no question of east and west being separated over a matter of this kind. The east, as I understand it, is unanimously in favour of the west receiving its resources and administering those resources in the interests of the provinces themselves and not, I may say, in the interest of the Dominion government, as was the position taken before the supreme court.
The agreement reached with Manitoba contemplated the approval of parliament, and I wish to refer briefly to this. Just exactly what the agreement was between the federal government and the government of Manitoba I do not think has been given to the house except in the statement which refers to the conference that was held and which appears on page 518 of Hansard. The fourth paragraph reads:
The findings of the commission to be submitted to the parliament of Canada and to the legislature of Manitoba.
I wish to direct attention to the fifth paragraph :
Upon agreement on the financial terms following consideration of the report of the commission, the respective governments to introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to the financial terms as agreed upon, and to effect the transfer to the province of the unalienated natural resources within its boundaries, subject to any trust existing in respect thereof, and without prejudice to any interest other than that of the crown in the same.
Paragraph five provided that the parliament of Canada and the legislature of Manitoba should ratify the terms of the transfer to the province of its unalienated natural resources. Paragraph six was just a working paragraph, in the interim providing for ordinary business. The transfer of the Seven Sisters falls, a transfer of such immense importance which fixed upon the province the question of public or private ownership for thirty years, was one that was not contemplated without the authorization of the provincial legislature or the approval of parliament.

Natural Resources-Mr. Ryckman


Mr. GLEN:: If the legislature of Manitoba
agreed to transfer those resources to a private corporation, would the hon. member say that parliament should still ratify it?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am not concerned with that. That is a hypothetical question. My answer to that is that if those resources belong to Manitoba and the legislature of Manitoba, knowing the nature and value of its property, says:	Do so and so, it is proper
that should be done.


James Allison Glen: The amendment does not call for that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: What did take place?
It has been stated that Manitoba could not have done this itself. I think it could and just in this way. Manitoba could have accepted the lease in this case in all its terms just in the same way as it could accept any other benefit. It could have made a simple assignment of the property in the lease and directed it towards that company. But the government most unwisely undertook to do for Manitoba what Manitoba could not do itself because it did not have the approval of its people and of its legislature. That is plainly the situation. If that approval had been obtained, all the trouble, doubt and suspicion to which the Frime Minister has referred would have been avoided. If there was not something sinister, it is strange that paragraph six should be in the terms in which it is. What is the result? As admitted by every hon. member there is a large question of provincial policy, that of public or private ownership. This has been decided for Manitoba by the federal government and the Bracken government without the people of Manitoba having had an opportunity to express their will. Private ownership has been fastened on Manitoba for at least thirty years and perhaps for all time, and this has been done, as has been shown, without the approval of the members of the house. That is, the action of the federal government has been taken without the members interested having had an opportunity to express their opinion upon the matter, and a great deal of explaining is necessary as to why, when the matter was up for consideration, no chance was given to consult either the legislature or the people of Manitoba. As regards the members of this house who were interested, I think they have been put into a bag, tied up like blind kittens and dropped over the Seven Sisters falls. I am anxious that it will be impossible for such a situation ever to occur again. Therefore, why not let us pass a resolution of this kind saying that when it is the intention to dispose
of such important natural resources as water-powers, the house, if it has control over those water-powers, shall have a say in the disposition of them? Years ago many now sitting on that side of the house stood, when on this side of the house, for that very thing-no alienation of the important assets of the Dominion without the consent of parliament. Even the present Prime Minister then declared that parliament should speak, that the government of this country should be by parliament, and not by the few, that the members of parliament, whether of his party or of any other party, should have the opportunity to express their will. But the Prime Minister now says that he is asked to break an agreement. He is not asked to break an agreement. There is no such question raised in the amendment to the resolution.
Let me point out to the Prime Minister what actually has occurred in an other case. His government by order in council authorized the execution of a contract with Sir William Petersen. That agreement was subject to the ratification of parliament. That contract was, if I may use the word, a most unworthy contract, having regard to the needs of the people of this country. Instead of giving, as it purported to give, lower ocean freight rates to the shippers of this country, it gave control of rates to Sir William Petersen, and when that was found out, parliament did not ratify the contract. Canada receded. The name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Hon. Mr. Low, was on that contract. The contract had been authorized by the government and by the right hon. the Prime Minister, but the government receded from that contract which it had authorized. The government could have forced it through the house if it had so desired, but the result would have been a contract which was not in the interests of Canada. Parliament had its chance, and parliament saved the situation. If this amendment passes, parliament will have the chance to save the situation again.


Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: -Mr. Speaker, as this resolution and the amendment concern the three western provinces only, I feel that I should be neglecting my duty, having the honour to represent one of the ridings in the western provinces, if I did not raise my voice in protest on this occasion.


Mr. SPENCER:: Where in the resolution
are the three western provinces mentioned?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: The natural resources
of the three western provinces are the only
624	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Beaubien
resources of any province in this Dominion which are in the hands of the federal government; that is why I say the three western provinces.
The effect of the resolution and the amendment would seem to 'be to say to the rest of Canada that Manitoba-I speak for Manitoba because I am mostly concerned with that province, and know it best-although it has been in confederation for almost sixty years is still in its infancy and does not know how to handle its natural resources.
I am surprised also, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution should have been introduced by a member from western Canada, especially by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). He has made some wonderful speeches in this house against the centralization of control. In connection with imperial relations, for instance, he denounced centralized control of the empire in any shape or form, but when it comes to provincial matters and the natural resources of the western provinces, he takes the colonial attitude and preaches the finest Tory doctrine I have ever heard in my life. I believe the hon. member is honest in his opinions, but I think he has been blindfolded by the theory of public ownership.


Mr. HEAPS:: Would my hon. friend mind quoting him?


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: These hon. gentlemen
have spoken, Mr. Speaker, for about six days on this question, and I intend to speak for only ten minutes. They can say what they like when I get through.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do you object to answering
the question?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I am for public ownership; I believe in it, but I am not blindfolded by it. I am convinced that if Premier Bracken had gone into the development of the Seven Sisters falls he would have killed public ownership in the province of Manitoba for ever, because it was proved beyond1 a doubt in the report of one of the most competent engineers, Dr. Hogg, who is renowned in Ontario for his integrity, and whose authority I think no one will question, that the development of the Seven Sisters power site as a provincial enterprise was a folly economically.
Here was the situation. We needed power in Manitoba, and the Seven Sisters was the first power site that should be developed. The provincial government in Manitoba entered into a contract with the Winnipeg Electric Company. That was one of the best

contracts that ever was made by any province with a private corporation. It was the most water-tight contract possible, with the public protected in every way, shape and form. The Manitoba government said: We will withdraw our application for this lease if you will sign that contract ; and the Winnipeg Electric Company signed the contract.
What does that contract mean? It means getting closer to public ownership than we would ever have done had the cantract not been made. Why? Because it eliminates one of the greatest obstacles in the way of the development of power on the Winnipeg river. It wipes out the perpetual rights which the Winnipeg Electric Company enjoyed on the Pinawa channel. It increases the development of power on the Winnipeg river by between fifty and sixty thousand horse-power. In addition, the provincial government at the end of thirty years have the right to expropriate the development on a cost basis, less depreciation, the cost to be arrived at by the engineers of the water-powers branch, who are on the works at the time of construction, and the engineers of the Winnipeg Electric Company, and if they fail to agree, the question is to be referred to the exchequer court, whose decision shall be final.
So I say that the provincial government made a good contract for the people of Manitoba, and I am positive that when the political turmoil in the province of Manitoba is over, and the people of Manitoba have had a chance to find out what is in that contract, Premier Bracken will go down in the history of the province as having made one of the best deals that ever was made for the people of Manitoba. That is my opinion. Not only is Premier Bracken to be congratulated, but the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and all his colleagues are to be congratulated, first, because they have placed Manitoba in a position where we are going to get our natural resources in a very short time. Even if we do not get them within a year or two, in the meantime they will be administered by the federal authorities in accordance with the wishes of the province of Manitoba. I wish to congratulate the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues on bringing the agreement so close to completion in July last.
My hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Ryckman) asked: Instead of granting the lease of the Seven Sisters power site to the Winnipeg Electric Company, why did not the Minister of the Interior lease it to the Manitoba government? Well, I am not

Natural Resources-Mr. Adshead
a lawyer-don't want to be-but my understanding is that until the resources are actually transferred to Manitoba the Minister of the Interior had no other course open, he simply had to grant the lease as requested by the Manitoba government. I congratulate him on the fact that in this lease from the water-powers branch to the Winnipeg Electric Company the interests of the public are better safeguarded than in any similar lease within my knowledge or, I think, within the knowledge of most hon. members.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are in a most extraordinary position. My hon. friend from Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) the other night when the amendment was moved by the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) said: Since it mentions water-powers I can vote for the amendment. How is he going to reconcile his attitude with the resolution which he had on the order paper for two sessions to my knowledge, and which this house passed unanimously the other day for the return of the natural resources to the prairie provinces without any restrictions? Are we now going to say: Four or five days ago we did not know what we were doing; we want to put restrictions on the return of those resources. I have said before and I repeat my statement, that this resolution and the amendment thereto affect the three prairie provinces and no others. The maritime provinces, Quebec and Ontario have always handled their natural resources. I say to my hon. friends opposite from the province of Ontario, who to-day are trying to convince the public that they are so much concerned over public ownership in Manitoba, that all the water-powers in northern Ontario were given to private corporations by order in council. And' rightly so, because if the Ontario government had waited for the local legislature to approve of the contracts the development of that great northern country would have been retarded, and Canada would have been the loser.
Let us be fair, Mr. Speaker. Western Canada has been fighting for the return of its natural resources ever since I have been in that country, which is close on fifty years. Manitoba has been a member of confederation since 1870, but she has never had control of her natural resources. We in Manitoba can handle our own affairs, we are just as intelligent as our fellow-Canadians in the sister provinces. I for one will not be a party to having any outside authority say what we in western Canada shall do with our natural 78594-40
resources. Therefore I intend to vote against the resolution and the amendment, and to oppose with all my strength any proposal tending to restrict the development of western Canada.


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, I am a disinterested spectator of what has been going on between the Manitoba government and the members from that province and the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). The resolution deals with the control of parliament over the disposition of the natural resources now administered by the federal government, but the discussion has developed into an attack on the Minister of the Interior for his alleged breach of faith with eighteen of the Manitoba members with respect to the leasing of the Seven Sisters falls power site. In fact at one stage the attack became so severe that you, sir, had to call some hon. members to order for challenging statements made by the minister.
Now as to the dispute, I have not much to say. The order in council dealing with the power site was signed on August 1, 1928. It says:
Pending this transfer-
That is, completion of the agreement between the government of Manitoba and the Dominion government.
-the policy of the government of Canada in the administration of the natural resources of Manitoba to be in accord with the washes of the government of the province of Manitoba.
From that very date the power of the Minister of the Interior to administer those resources was subject entirely to the wishes of the provincial government. It has been argued that the minister should not have taken- final action until the provincial legislature had passed upon the action of the Bracken government. I do not think that is the real situation. I believe that the government of Manitoba was appointed by the legislature as its agents, and as such the provincial government are responsible to the legislature, and to no other legislative authority.
I know in the province of Alberta the Minister of the Interior on one occasion was criticized for having granted a license for hydro-electric power to the Calgary Power Company without having consulted the premier, Mr. Brownlee; but afterwards it was found out that he had done so. At once the criticism of the United Farmers of Alberta was directed at Premier Brownlee

626	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Motherwell
Looking through the press of Manitoba, I find that even those papers that are averse to the granting of the lease to the Winnipeg Electric Company do not criticize the Minister of the Interior, but Premier Bracken and his government. Therefore I cannot vote in favour of the resolution or the amendment. As has been said, the resolution is double-barrelled. It may be said: If you vote against this resolution or against the amendment the people of Calgary will think you are opposed to public ownership. On the other hand, by voting in favour I may be charged with a desire to perpetuate the control by the federal authorities of the natural resources of the western provinces. But I am quite satisfied that if the resolution and amendment carry it will be inferred not only in this house but throughout the Dominion to be a vote of censure on the Minister of the Interior. Therefore having reached the conclusion that under the agreement between Manitoba and the Dominion he could have taken no other course than comply with the wishes of the provincial government, I can support neither the resolution nor the amendment.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution
would seem to be the result of certain political backfire investigations that have been preceding in the province of Manitoba for some time. It is not so apparent, however, just what the meaning of the resolution and the amendment is, judging from the wide scope of the discussion and the many interpretations put upon them.
Taking the interpretation of the hon. sponsor of the resolution, I gather that he does not desire to raise the question as to the respective merits of private ownership of power and public ownership; nor does he wish to discuss the merits or demerits of the bargain itself. He is of the opinion that the lease is an exceedingly good one, prepared under an act which possibly is not excelled in any part of the world. So that we are reduced to this interpretation of the matter, from the standpoint of the hon. gentleman, that he raises the question as to whether any further alienation of our resources in the west-not exclusively in the west but particularly there-shall be permitted without submitting each separate contract or lease to this parliament for ratification. I take that to be the meaning of the resolution.
Judging from the alacrity with which my hon. friend from Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) has switched his allegiance from op-

position to the resolution to support of the amendment, I gather that he thinks there is a decided difference between the amendment and the resolution itself. There may be some distinction between the two, but for my part I can see no difference in principle. Suppose the amendment carries: it will have to be implemented by legislation; the government will have to bring down amendments not only to the Dominion Lands Act but to the Water-Powers Act and possibly half a dozen others. How can be justify segregating water-powers and deciding that they shall be dealt with in the particular manner provided by the amendment to the resolution, leaving all other resources to be administered as they have been for the last half century or more? No government could justify making that distinction and legislating thereon. It is true, resources are of varying importance and different in character; but there is no difference in principle between the resolution and the amendment, so far as I can see.
We have heard the expression, " no strings on our resources." I wonder whether the acting leader of the opposition desires to have this kind of string, of which he is speaking, tied to the resources of Manitoba after they are transferred. Surely not. No such string is tied to any other province. Well, if it is not desirable to have it tied to the resources when handed over, why is it desirable to have it tied to this particular resource? There must be some reason for it. This is the law and the practice that has obtained for the last half century, and there has been no complaint against it that I have heard. The onus of proving the advisability of a change lies with those who ask for the change. Who wants to make a change in a law of this nature, especially with respect to the Water-Powers Act, which has been in force for so long a time and has been satisfactory to the public interest generally? I have listened attentively to this debate and have read in my spare moments some of the addresses that have been delivered, and I cannot find a valid reason for any change. I find, on the other hand, many reasons, which must appear sensible to thinking men, why we should continue an act that has given satisfaction all round. But no attempt has been made to give any valid reasons for the change. I am prepared to show that no such change should be made, for the simple reason that it would retard the development of resources indefinitely.
Referring to the statement made by my hon.
friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryck-

Natural Resources-Mr. Motherwell
man), the hon. member criticizes the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), trying to find a statement of his in which he intimates that before any natural resources should be completely returned the matter should be confirmed and ratified and a bill passed through this house. Of course, that is taken for granted. But there is no comparison between that statement and the point under discussion. That deals with all resources; it deals with all three provinces. A bill did pass this house with respect to the resources of Alberta, and a bill will pass this house with respect to all others before any bargain can be consummated.
Let us go back to the development which has recently taken place in Manitoba-and this has been referred to already. Imagine the delay that would have been experienced in connection with the Hudson Bay mining development scheme if that had had to be referred to this house. As everyone knows, the Whitney people's option expired in the fall of 1927; they had to execute it or the option would have expired. If the law had stated that the matter must first be submitted to the house, they could not have taken up their option and gone ahead with the enterprise, with the result that the key to that great northern development might still have remained unturned; that would have been the situation if that proposition had first to be submitted to this parliament for ratification. Then later on power had to be obtained and a lease secured. There was a difference of opinion as to whether the White Mud falls or the Island falls at Churchill should be used. It was decided in favour of the latter, and that meant that Saskatchewan was concerned as well as Manitoba. As a matter of fact, the province of Saskatchewan was consulted with regard to the Hudson Bay mining development, more familiarly known as the Flin Flon, and the representations of both Manitoba and Saskatchewan were incorporated not only in the mining lease but also in the power lease on the Churchill. Quite recently it has been found, too, that in order to facilitate the development of the falls on the Churchill, before mining operations can actually begin in connection with the Flin Flon or the Hudson Bay scheme, a smaller development is required to provide power, in the absence of coal, which is usually used during the construction of the plant. A considerable amount of power is required, and in lieu of coal a small ten or twelve hundred horse power plant was asked for. Under this resolution, that could not be eranted until the meeting of this parliament, 7S594 -40J
when the issue would have to be decided. The result is that the whole mineral and water development of the western country would be tied up if such a resolution as this passed.
Later on, we anticipate, a further request will be made in Saskatchewan. Explorers and those who are investigating these matters, and miners as well, are even now appearing _at Rotten Stone lake, 200 miles north of Prince Albert. Those of you who read the western papers will see that all roads, if not converging in Prince Albert, are at least developed outward from that centre. Fleets of airplanes and dog trains as well are travelling in all directions into the north land with supplies for those who are investigating the possibilities of mining in that vast territory. Now let us suppose this house prorogues, and the Rotten Stone lake or the Reindeer lake or both desire to secure mining lands with accompanying water-powers; they will have to sit by and wait until the house meets next year and we discuss among ourselves-laymen for the most part-what is entirely an engineering proposition. All that procedure would have to be followed before a decision could be arrived at. I cannot imagine anything more ridiculous; yet that is the string my hon. friends opposite have been talking about. Why, it is a cable that they are tying to the whole problem. 1 think the cat is out of the bag; I do not believe they care three hoots about resources. They know the resources will be transferred soon and they want to get into our band wagon and do some of the shouting and claim some of the credit. That is what this resolution amounts to, with its amendment. The same thing might be said with respect to Alberta. I wonder how my hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird), and my friends from Saskatchewan, can advocate a proposition which will hamper the development of that country's resources-resources which have been lying dormant from time immemorial. Those resources are now on the verge of development and they want a further delay until next year. Evidently they think the time is not ripe for the development of these resources and they want to hamper progress for another year by means of this resolution, with its amendment.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Has the Dominion government done anything with Alberta's natural resources without consulting the government of Alberta?


William Richard Motherwell: Not that I know of With respect to another province an order ir council has been secured which I will read, il you like. This order in council was passed
628	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Motherwell
under date August 1st last, and section 6 thereof refers to the transfer of natural resources and the agreement arrived at between the two governments, the terms of the agreement being set out. This is the last section:
Pending this transfer, the policy of the government of Canada in the administration of the natural resources of Manitoba to be in accord with the wishes of the government of the province.
Nothing could be more complete or more simple than that, and that clause was embodied in the agreement for the express purpose of showing that if this investigation should be prolonged we were sincere in our desire virtually to give them control of their resources by carrying out their wishes in connection with them. That has been the practice of this government ever since we came into power and now it is confirmed by this order in council so that the people of Manitoba will have no reason to object to the length of time involved in a final settlement, because now their resources are administered exactly as they wish. Surely that is the very essence of provincial rights, as recognized by the Liberal party ever since confederation. With respect to the other two provinces, I happened to be acting Minister of the Interior at the time the Hudson Bay mining lease was granted, and I know there can be quite enough delays even under our present system of administration without this parliament making more. With regard to the resources of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the same method of consultation has been in vogue all these years; sometimes they were not so anxious to exercise that right but that is another story. The fact is that we have consulted them and they virtually have had their resources so far as the method of administration was concerned. This agreement gave the assurance that at the earliest possible date we desired to return the resources fully.
While this may not be particularly germane to the question, in passing I would point out that the reason the resources have not been returned by any government is because the original bargains with the provinces were so good that the provinces were not going to have them abrogated until they were given better bargains. Take the province of Saskatchewan; the bargain they made in 1905 proved to be so good that they decided to keep it until some one produced a better bargain. They are awaiting that day yet, and when it comes it will be found that there will be no difficulty in consummating the transaction.

There is another development taking place on Ghost river; that is a bad name, but I understand the river is actually there. We have heard of the Spray falls development up near Banff, and I understand the Ghost river development is midway between Spray falls and Calgary. If we had to wait and go through all this rigmarole and discussion, where would that development be? This is an example of what would happen; this shows how much we know of the engineering features connected with these developments, particularly those members who have not yet visited western Canada. Nothing would be done, and whoever was financing a development never would know where they stood until finally the agreement was passed by this parliament. I hope we will never have such a condition of affairs. Imagine financiers waiting for something to go through this house, say during the first five years we were in office, wondering what was going to happen. You could not get money under those circumstances, and consequently the development of the country, which has been delayed long enough, would be held back still further. While I was listening to my hon. friend who preceded me (Mr. Ryckman) I was going to remark that his province was enjoying its own natural resources but apparently he is desirous of strangling our development while camouflaging and humbugging and pretending he is lying awake nights wondering how to help us.
I do not like to introduce any extraneous matter into this debate, but I am constrained to refer to the Dominion Water Powers Act, passed in 1919, when I think my hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition was a member of the government in power at that time. It is claimed that this act is one of the best ever placed on our statutes as far as the safeguarding of the public interest is concerned, and I would point out that in his present stand my hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition is stultifying himself. The lease was given under this act, which he himself helped to frame.
In connection with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), who moved this resolution, may I say that under this act the government is given power to administer those resources, under conditions more favourable to labour than are contained in any other similar act on this continent. In section 83a of the regulations based on this act we find the following:
Every license shall be deemed to be executed on the express condition that the licensee shall pay or require to be paid to those employed in the construction, alteration, extension, maintenance and operation of the works authorized by such license, wages not less than those

Nalural Resources-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
generally accepted as current for similar services in similar undertakings in the locality, and that such licensee shall maintain conditions of labour not less favourable than those prevailing in similar undertakings in the locality.
That is part of the regulations associated with and based upon this act, and this is the act upon which the lease was based. So our labour men, both in and out of this house, should be the last to argue against the merits of this lease, although I believe my hon. friend intimated that he was not discussing the merits, and I presume this is one of the good things he had in mind.
I shall not dwell further on this matter, Mr. Speaker, except to say that I know hon. gentlemen opposite are hard up for something to talk about this session; they have been looking for a toe-hold ever since this session opened, and so far they have not located one. Lari; year they thought they had something on the Department of Immigration, but that fizzled out. An investigation was made covering weeks and months; they were going to do all sorts of things, but nothing happened. We have had other investigations during the last few years, but they have always back-fired upon hon. gentlemen opposite, and if I know anything about it this will do the same thing. It is not necessary to intimate that they are not going to be much better off when they begin discussing the budget; certainly they will have to get out their magnifying glasses in order to find any fault. They want to find something to object to, on the principle that it is not good politics to agree with everything the government bring down. They are hoping, as was intimated by the hon. member who preceded me (Mr. Ryckman) that something may develop from the situation in Manitoba which will in some way incriminate this government. They do not care anything about the natural resources; if we allow them to do so they will tie them up tighter than you could tie them with a logging chain. They do not care anything about the resources so long as they can make a little capital out of them, and God knows they need it.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage I
think I should make some further explanation of the contract in connection with the Seven Sisters falls. The question of the desirability of adopting the resolution and amendment has been pretty well discussed, I think, and I have nothing to add except that so far as any safeguards which can be thrown around any department are concerned, I do not think any minister will object to them. I think no one in this 'house has a greater appreciation of the
responsible position occupied by the Minister of the Interior than I have, and whether this resolution is accepted or defeated the one thing I must keep in mind is that in connection with all the leases, of which there are thousands annually, they are apt to be revised and are all subject to consideration by any member of this house who cares to investigate or ask about them. To a very large degree parliament does exercise control over the department which I have the honour to administer. I was especially careful with respect to this particular agreement which is under discussion. There was a great deal of controversy in connection with it, and I may say that since I have been minister there has never been a lease of any moment issued in the province of Manitoba on which there has not been a wide-difference of opinion. This lease presented some very serious difficulties-I mentioned a number of them the other day, and I will not cover that ground again. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) mentioned one of the most difficult points, namely, that as early as 1893 the Winnipeg Electric Company had started a small development on the Winnipeg river. In 1911 that agreement was amended and brought somewhat under the control of the Department of the Interior, although we did not control the cost of construction or the rentals. That agreement gave the Winnipeg Electric Company the right to divert 9,000 cubic feet from the Pinawa channel in perpetuity for S100 per year. The city of Winnipeg had a similar agreement for a larger amount of water, and they still enjoy that privilege.
May I say here that my sympathy goes out to public ownership and I am willing at every stage to see that there is first a refusal of any utility, be it water-power or anything elset on the part of the representatives of the public. That was the case with respect to this matter. In 1906 the Winnipeg Electric Company had secured all the land around the Seven Sisters development. Hon. members have criticized me somewhat severely with respect to this very matter, but I had nothing to do with the acquiring of that property. From looking over the correspondence complained of, I would assume they were simply taking the precaution that in the event of their developing, or the development by the Manitoba government, they would be protected; for at that time the application of the Manitoba government had priority.
I have given my unqualified backing to the engineers in my department with a view to accomplishing the maximum development on the Winnipeg river stretch, as well as on the
630	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
English river stretch in Ontario, although we have nothing to do with any action taken ' by the Ontario government in that respect. Members of the house will remember the controversy over the Norman dam between the Backus interests and the Dominion and Ontario governments. We have a storage basin in the lake of the Woods that is of inestimable value to the people of the Winnipeg district and the province of Manitoba. Not only that, but we have succeeded in obtaining a storage in lac Seul through the consent of the Ontario government. I will tell my Ontario friends quite frankly that I agreed to the construction of the dam to increase the storage facilities at lac Seul on a cost plus basis, without tender being offered, as I had the utmost confidence in the people who are doing that construction work at lac Seul. This work is being carried on under the auspices of the engineers of the Ontario hydro, and we are putting $500,000 into that enterprise. I still have some confidence in my fellow men and I do not share the suspicion that has been expressed so frequently by those-and I say this with all due deference-who knew very little about the matter they were talking about.
I am not quarrelling about public ownership or private ownership. As I have stated, I first ascertain whether the representatives of the public in any particular locality are desirous of an enterprise being developed under public ownership. Having ascertained to my satisfaction that they do not wish to do this I am prepared to make, with a private corporation, the best deal I can in the public interest and that is what was done in this instance.
Through the arrangement we made with the Ontario government, we were able to say to the people of Manitoba that we were going to increase their power possibilities on the Winnipeg river stretch. Through the securing of this storage basin we were able to increase the development by 300,000 horse-power. We have spent $2,000,000, but we will get that back in instalments from the power company after the development takes place. That is what we have accomplished in the interests of the people of Manitoba.
The Manitoba government could have developed this stretch themselves, but there was the difficulty in removing the Pinawa plant. We had discussed this to some extent with the Winnipeg Electric Company and they believed that their lease in perpetuity costing $100 per year was worth $6,000,000 to them. This is a staggering sum, and it looked like a very difficult proposition to get over. When 
Mr. Bracken came into the matter in 1927 he was told of what we had done in Ontario and that if the Pinawa plant could not be scrapped, thus diverting the flowage over the Seven Sisters reef, then the people of Winnipeg would be deprived of 50,000 horse-power. As I said the other night, he was told that if it was found impossible to deal with the Winnipeg Electric, and he desired to have the Seven Sisters site with the loss of the 50,000 horse-power, I would see that he got it. I made that statement the other night, and I make it again.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When was this?


Charles A. Stewart: In 1927,
when he decided to make application for the development.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What month in 1927?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
dealing with definite dates, and I cannot give the hon. member the month.
I made another stipulation to Premier Bracken; that if he decided later on to recommend dealing with the Winnipeg Electric Company, a separate company should be organized. I did not want to be confronted with the financing of the Winnipeg Electric Company; I wanted to know the provisions contained in the contract and' what the work would cost so that it would be a guide with respect to a future purchase or the control of rates-hence, the Northwestern Power Company. For over a year Mr. Bracken w'as negotiating an agreement with the Winnipeg Electric Company. I was interested in bringing about this development through the scrapping of the Pinawa plant in order that we might get rid of that 9,000 cubic feet in perpetuity and thus have 50,000 horse-power additional on the Seven Sisters reach, and $25,000 or more per year in revenue. But if the Bracken government had been desirous of carrying on this development I would have issued a lease to them. That is my position with respect to private or public ownership. He made his agreement, but I am not going into that. We know he got the power he required for twelve dollars or in the neighbourhood of twelve dollars, between eleven and thirteen dollars. He got the company to agree to scrap the Pinawa plant, to construct the Seven Sisters, to give up their right in perpetuity in that water, they to use it for thirty years for $100. At the end of thirty years rentals prevailing for the water-powers on that reach will prevail as regards the 9,000 cubic feet. But they get in addition, from the moment of construction, fifty

Natural Resources-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
cents per horse-power for a minimum rental of 50,000 horse-power or $25,000 a year for the thirty years.
I said that it was a good agreement and I say so still. I did not sign or execute that agreement until I was satisfied that every public interest, so far as I could conceive it, was protected. May I say, with respect to the purchase of the plant, that is provided for at the end of thirty years. If my hon. friends can create in Manitoba a sentiment that can change the Manitoba government or the Manitoba representatives so that they want to buy the plant, every provision and every safeguard are inserted in the agreement to enable them to do so.
The first fifteen years at least from the inception of that power plant will be the worst years, the lean years. People talk very glibly about the way in which private interests get away with all the natural resources of the country. There is not a single natural resource of which I have had the administration since I came into this office that I have sold outright to anyone. They are all under lease and the leases can all be cancelled. I am under review and the operation of my department is under review by the members of the house. If I were sitting in the opposition as a private member and if I had an objection to take to any particular deal consummated in my province or constituency,
I think I could promise you I would bring it to the attention of the house, and I do not think private members are lax in taking an opportunity to complain if they believe they have a right to do so. That is the control parliament exercises over the minister, the department and the government. That is the situation with respect to the Seven Sisters deal. I say most emphatically that no public interest has been neglected with regard to the arrangement.
Let me deal now with the statement of my hon. friend that I have not played fair with the Manitoba members. In the first place, may I refer again to the famous statement that is quoted so often, that was made to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in the house? After a considerable discussion with reference to the Seven Sisters I made this statement and I want to read the concluding paragraph:
Possibly I have carried that principle too
far-
That is the principle of consulting.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: When was this?


Charles A. Stewart: I am quotug from page 3853 of Hansard. This was in
reference to the matter when the estimates of the Department of the Interior were going through and the leader of the opposition had this question up.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Last year's Hansard?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, June
6. It has been referred to very frequently and perhaps I had better read my last statement with respect to the matter:
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton): May I give my hon. friend the assurance now that so far as liis request is concerned I have no serious objection to offer except this: Of course I am always made more or less the storm centre for the settlement of these difficulties, particularly in Manitoba, but I have adopted the principle of consulting with the provincial governments about these matters. Possibly I have earned that principle too far, but I am never forgetful of the fact that I must take the responsibility for final disposition. I am going to say very frankly here and now that notwithstanding the fact that at present the government have adopted a line of action with respect to the Seven Sisters falls I am not in any particular hurry to come to any decision about that matter, largely because of the fact that the members of this house have expressed very decided opinions about the matter as federal members. I am not very much disturbed by the statement that there must be immediate action; I have investigated the matter pretty well and I think there is plenty of time to give ample consideration to this matter before it is decided. In order to settle the question, and in order to prevent any delay, I do not see any reason why we should not await the action of the city council of Winnipeg and of the provincial government, which must take the responsibility, before a final decision is made here. 1 think that should satisfy my hon. friend.
That was the final statement made to the leader of the opposition when the matter was under discussion. A great deal has been said about that and it is said that the next day I wrote a letter to Premier Bracken in which I said that the matter had been up for discussion in the house and there would have to be a delay for a month or so: that is, that I was going back on my word to the members of the house, to the leader of the opposition and to the private members from Manitoba. Let me say that so far as I was able I kept my word both to the house and to the members from Manitoba. That letter was written and I delayed the issuance of the lease until late in September. I took every precaution to carry out my word to the leader of the opposition in seeing that the city of Winnipeg was consulted. The city council on two occasions made it a matter of resolution and vote.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That was before the minister 9ent that letter.
632	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)


Charles A. Stewart: Never mind. That was my answer to the city council and my hon. friend need not quibble about that particular phase of the matter. With regard to the .provinces of Manitoba I was constantly in consultation with the authorities and nobody knows better than my hon. friends in that corner of the house that such was the case; nobody knows better than they that on the night of July 3 I left here and I discussed the matter with the members from Manitoba. Later on, learning that the Prime Minister, as he stated the other day, had- made an agreement with the Premier of Manitoba that these resources would be administered in accordance with their wishes, I again consulted the members from Manitoba, not on only one occasion but on half a dozen occasions. My hon. friend was not in the city of Winnipeg at that time; neither was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) .


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: The hon. member for
North Winnipeg was mending antique furniture in Montreal.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
know where he was but all I have to say is that he was not in Winnipeg. What did my hon. friends say by their resolution?-and I hold it in my hand. Did they not say, in the round robin of which they spoke, that I was first to ascertain whether or not the development could take place by public ownership either by the city or by the province, and failing that I was at liberty to deal preferably with the Winnipeg Electric because they had been the first applicants? I do not know wherein I have committed any breach of trust in connection with the administration of this matter. I must confess that I did not wait until I had consulted every member who represents Winnipeg. I did not consult the members who, I knew, from the very inception of the matter were in favour of it. I took care to consult the members who, according to their own statements, were opposed because they hoped that development by public ownership would take place.


Mr. BIRD:: I am not finding any fault,
but I do not want it to go out that the minister consulted me.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Bird) made the fairest statement of any member of the house in respect to my participation in the matter, and I want to thank him for it. His statement was eminently fair. Perhaps I had better read it in order to clear the matter up so far as 
he is concerned, because I do not want any reflection cast upon anyone, much less am I going to take any reflections upon mfself. I quote from the statement my hon. friend made when speaking on this matter, as it appears on page 449 of this year's Hansard:
The Minister of the Interior did say to us quite plainly, before we left for home last session, that he could not hold up this matter until the Manitoba legislature met; he was very frank about that. But if I did not misunderstand him, and there is always the possibility that I might have-I can confirm what I am saying by my own diary, and his words in the house seem to confirm it-he said that before anything was done the members for Manitoba would be consulted. As I say, there may have been misunderstanding, and it is a very critical situation in which to make a mistake .
I did say that, and if it is any satisfaction to my hon. friend, I will say that I did not see him on any of the occasions on which I consulted with the Manitoba members. While I assume my responsibility to every member of this house, I have a particular responsibility to the members who sit on this side of the house, who think as I do, and whose advice I must first seek. I do not desire to evade the advice of any man, but I have a particular responsibility to the members on this side of the house who support the government, and they certainly were consulted.
With respect to leaving it to the legislature,
I suggested that very course to Premier Bracken in July, and I find in the correspondence which was brought down and laid on the table of this house a statement from Premier Bracken citing the statements made by members of the provincial legislature as evidence that the legislature was behind this matter, but he distinctly said that he was going to-take the responsibility- I repeat, I am seeking to evade no responsibility-even to the extent of passing an order in council, which order in council was read by my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell).' So that while I seek to evade no responsibility that is mine, I say again that so far as I was concerned I took all the precautions which I promised to any member of this house I would take and after assuring myself that the provincial government were insistent upon this lease being executed, I decided to recommend to our government that that be done.


Mr. A. D. McRAE (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to take up but a very short time this afternoon in support of the amendment. Many of us in the house felt that when the resolution of the hon. mem-

Natural Resources-Mr. McRae
ber for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) was unanimously adopted by the house on the 18th of last month, this question of the natural resources of the provinces had been pretty well settled. The speech, however, of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on Thursday evening, followed by this debate, would lead one to believe that our western provinces are yet a long way from getting their resources.
Reviewing tersely that part of the debate, we find that Manitoba had practically consummated its agreement with the government, that Alberta was also in agreement, and that the province of Saskatchewan is now negotiating its case. It would seem that the government might implement the wishes of this house and give early effect to that settlement which we all desire.
The right hon. the Prime Minister spoke the other evening about dividing east and west over this amendment. I have only this comment to make: the great prairie provinces, it would appear, have been very patient and forbearing, and their breaking with the east will depend on how long the government is going to take to give them control of their resources. Parliament has decided the issue, and it seems to me that the matter rests with the government. While I am not familiar with the technicalities of parliamentary procedure, I am quite sure that if this matter was dealt with on a business basis, a final settlement, which is largely a matter of accounting, could be arrived at with very little loss of time.
There are one or two points which have not been considered in this debate to which I would like to draw the attention of hon. members. Eliminating the question of the resources of the western provinces, it would appear that this amendment involves the matter of navigation in our navigable rivers, and the administration of water-powers beyond the boundaries of our provinces. Few, I think, will disagree with the need for protecting the national interests so far as navigation is concerned, and no body is so competent to pass on the national interest as this parliament. I noticed in the Ottawa Citizen this morning a statement that the government proposed to make an announcement on the Beauharnois project some time to-day. It would be very interesting to the members of this house, Mr. Speaker, and very pertinent to this debate, if that statement were before us now. I am not all familiar with the Beauharnois power project, but I am to some extent familiar with the St. Lawrence development, which has been before this government and the country for several years now, and on
which we have expended a large sum of money for the purpose of making an investigation and bringing in a report. If the Beauharnois development does not interfere in any way with the St. Lawrence development, in connection with which our government has already advanced to a final stage, if it does not involve the diversion of the water dealt with and included in the report of the engineers on the St. Lawrence development, then I do not see that nationally we are concerned about it. But on the other hand, if it does not make for the economic development of the entire project as submitted by the engineers, then I think this government and this parliament is vitally concerned in the matter, and we should have before us in considering this resolution the information which it is stated in the press will soon be submitted to the house.
With regard to the water-powers beyond the boundaries of our provinces, there I approach a matter that I know something about. Few of us can appreciate the magnitude of our water-powers beyond our provincial boundaries in our great north country. To get a correct appreciation of their magnitude, you have to go down some of these gigantic rivers and see the numerous falls and rapids that you have to pass as you go along. It is evident that in our estimates of power in our great north, only the big and cheaply developed powers are taken into account. In almost every case there are innumerable sites where smaller developments would have already taken place had those sites been close to centres of population. I think it is a safe statement to make-it is difficult to contradict, at any rate-that the power in our northern country beyond the boundaries of our present provinces is at least twice our present estimates. Those powers cannot be developed to-day on account of the cost and the loss in transmission. There is a demand for the power, but it is too far away for commercial development. But viewing the great advances in electrical science in the past twenty years, particularly in the last ten years, with the marvelous development of radio, who is to say that we are not approaching the time when this power will be available for use in our present centres of population, and perhaps even further afield? I have in mind a statement made last spring by Mr. Isaacs of the British Marconi Company. He stated that his company was experimenting with the transmission of electric power through the ether, and he had sanguine hopes of success crowning their work, in which case the electric power generated on the North American continent
634	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. McRae
would be available for Great Britain. That may seem rather farfetched, Mr. Speaker, but wo do know that during the past few years experimenters in the United States have succeeded in transmitting power for a few hundred feet without the use of a connecting wire. I have no hesitation in saying that I am firmly convinced, as are many men much better qualified to pass an opinion, that by a beam system or some other means, probably a cheap lead wire, not only will the cost of transmission be greatly reduced, but also the loss in transmission will be largely eliminated.
That leads me, Mr. Speaker, to a calculation of the national revenue that would result from the development of these great powers with which a generous Providence has endowed us. Owned and operated by the government for the benefit of the people, I believe the resultant revenue would soon offset, if not wipe out, the debts of our provinces and the national debt as well. I am not enthusiastic about public ownership, I never have been. I have always felt that employing of large staffs as well as competition with private business was not a desirable government activity. But it does seem to me in view of the probable electrical developments that lie ahead that public ownership in the operation and control of our water-powers might well be entertained. To-day we build bridges; no one is needed to look after these structures. Only one or two men would be required to look after a big power development. Thus the objection of a large personnel is now obviated so far as the public ownership of our water-powers is concerned.
Several advantages would follow the government construction of power dams. In the first place, there would be cheap money and cheap credit; in the second place, there would be no promoters' profits, the plant would be developed at cost, and in that way the power would reach the consumer on an actual cost basis. Therefore I believe the time has come when this country should reserve for the benefit of the people all the water-powers not already alienated, to be developed by the government when and as required for the benefit of the nation generally. I would not have the government engage in the retailing of the power thus generated; according to my plan it should sell the power en bloc to distributors as well as to large users of power. In this way the government would always be in a position to see that the charges to the consumer were fair and reasonable.
If any warning is required as to the danger we run in connection with the private develop-
[Mr. McRae.}
ment of electricity in this country, we do not need to look very far afield. I say, and I say it advisedly, Mr. Speaker, that the exploitation of water-powers in the United States is the crime of the century. The best people there realize it, and the information I am about to give hon. members is furnished me by men who are so wrought up over conditions in their own country that they have impressed on me, as they would impress on every member of parliament, the vital importance of preventing similar raids on our own water-powers. Why, I know of one little development of a few thousand horse-power that has changed hands five times in as many years, and to-day the securities representing the entire cost belong to whom? To those who own that water-power. But that is not all. One man in New York by the exploitation of water-powers in the United States cleaned up in 1927 the huge profit of one hundred million dollars. He has given no useful service whatever to his fellow-citizens by that sort of exploitation.
I hope the house will bear with me for a moment while I refer to one state of the union that has prevented similar raids on the public domain. California fortunately has a law on its statute books regulating the development of water-powers. That law has not been detrimental to the development of hydro-electric power within the state. I am told by reputable residents of California that private corporations have developed ample power to meet all requirements; but there has been no exploitation, simply because under that law the expenditure on power developments is supervised and the earnings are regulated.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will
permit me-that is a state law. In Canada it would be a provincial law.


Mr. GEARY:: Not necessarily.


Alexander Duncan McRae: True, it would apply to our
provinces, and would serve them well. I think it would be advisable for the provincial legislatures and this parliament to enact legislation along similar lines.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I have fallen so far short in my attempt to lay before the house the great intrinsic values of the water-powers of the Dominion, water-powers which will flow forever, and which will steadily increase in value and in revenue as the years go by. Properly administered, these water-powers will be one of our greatest natural resources, and I for one believe that the time is opportune to surround their development with the restriction provided for by this amendment.

Natural Resources-Mr. Bissett


Mr. E. D. R. BISSETT (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, it had not been my intention to take part in this discussion, but inasmuch as most of those who have spoken have addressed themselves to the circumstances surrounding the granting of the lease of the Seven Sisters falls water-power site, I feel it incumbent to state to the house the part that I played in the transaction. I do not propose to discuss the lease between the Manitoba government and the Winnipeg Electric Railway Company or any subsidiary company; I consider that is a matter for discussion in the Manitoba legislature and not in this house. But if such is the case it might be interesting to find the reason why the members representing Manitoba in the federal house took a stand on this question at all. To do that it would be necessary to go back to a news item appearing in the Winnipeg papers in 1927, which stated that owing to a report from the city of Winnipeg, that the street railway company of that city had applied to the federal government for a lease of the Seven Sisters falls, the then leader of that government, Mr. Bracken, had stated that he was unalterably opposed to the street railway company getting that permit and was prepared to go, if necessary, as far as expropriating the Pinawa plant of the company on behalf of the province. When that news item reached Ottawa it was a matter of discussion among the Manitoba members, and in order to get behind the Manitoba government on the question a letter was drafted and sent to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), on February 8, 1928. This letter reads:
That we, the undersigned members of parliament for the province of Manitoba, respectfully request that the power site on the Winnipeg river known as the Seven Sisters falls be retained for the use of the government of the province of Manitoba in their own provincial hydro-electric system.
That was signed by the following members from Manitoba: Bissett, Bancroft, Steedsman, Milne, Ward, Lovie, Beaubien, Glen, Bird, Brown, McPherson, Howden, Thorson, Mc-Diarmid, Woodsworth and Heaps. In other words, sixteen out of the seventeen members representing Manitoba signed this letter which was sent to the Minister of the Interior on February 8, 1928. Subsequently it was found that the government of Manitoba had changed their mind in respect to the development of this power; for after an investigation they had apparently come to the conclusion that it was not wise for the province as a province to develop this water-power. But the one
thing I wish to point out here is that the legislative assembly of Manitoba had passed in 1927 a resolution reading:
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this house-
That is, the Manitoba legislature.
-the government should press for the immediate granting by the federal government all rights to the Seven Sisters falls, situate on the Winnipeg river, said site to be held by the government on behalf of the province of Manitoba.
At the same time the city of Winnipeg passed a resolution protesting against the granting of a lease of the Seven Sisters falls power site on the Winnipeg river to the Backus-Seaman interest, the action of the committee in sending the city solicitor to Ottawa "to be approved and endorsed." The Manitoba members, as has been said by several speakers in this debate, had a good many discussions with the Minister of the Interior relative to this lease and finally, on May 15, 1928, wrote to the federal minister the following letter which was signed, not by all the Manitoba members but by the majority of them. I wish to discuss this letter somewhat in detail. It reads:
The federal members, representing the province of Manitoba, have had before them the question of the disposal of the power of the Winnipeg river at Seven Sisters falls for some time, and after thoroughly going into the matter, beg to advise that their recommendation in connection with same is as follows:
1.	That the site be not disposed of but that the matter be held in abeyance until the close of the next session of the provincial legislature for the purpose of giving the legislature of the province of Manitoba an opportunity to express its opinion in connection with the disposal of the said site or the development of it by the province of Manitoba.
Now the whole" object of the Manitoba members in writing this clause into their letter was based on the fact that the Manitoba legislature-and the legislature, we are given to understand, is supreme-had by formal resolution requested that this particular power site, which was specified in the resolution, be held by and on behalf of the province of Manitoba. Clause 2 of the letter read:
2.	That the said - interval would afford the city of Winnipeg an opportunity to take a referendum vote on the question as to whether the said city desires to develop the power at said site in connection with their present hydro electric system.
That section of the letter was put in as a result of the resolution which I have quoted as having been passed by the city council of Winnipeg, which resolution protested

Natural Resources-Mr. Bissett
against the Seven Sisters power site being handed over to private enterprise. The letter also requested:
That in the event of the province of Manitoba deciding to develop the said power as a provincial undertaking, that they be given said right upon request.
And further, that if neither the province of Manitoba nor the city of Winnipeg wish to develop the said site, the present applicant, the Winnipeg Electric Railway Company, be given priority to any other private corporation to develop same, subject to the usual restrictions imposed by the water-power regulations.
Now I contend that that letter presented a very fair view on behalf of the Manitoba members. We insisted that inasmuch as the legislature of the province had asked that this site be held for the province, in our opinion this should be done; and we also asked that, inasmuch as the city of Winnipeg had protested against the alienation of this power to private interests, if the province was not interested the city of Winnipeg should be given the next opportunity to develop the site; and, thirdly, that failing either of these parties becoming interested, the railway company, the present applicant, should be considered ahead of any other applicants subsequently applying.
As the house has been told by a number of speakers, various interviews took place between the Minister of the Interior and the members from Manitoba, and I wish it distinctly understood that the Manitoba members were not all of one opinion regarding this proposition. The minister has been quoted with reference to a promise he gave the Manitoba members prior to prorogation, and which has been the subject of a great many remarks, not all of them to his credit. I feel that I should explain exactly what my position wa. with respect to the promise made by the minister. When the house prorogued I was under the impression that before anything further was done in regard to this power site I would be consulted, and I want the house to understand that prior to the conference and agreement being signed between the provincial and federal governments with respect to the natural resources I had not changed my mind in regard to this deal between the street railway company and the provincial government. Further I want to say that until the agreement was made between the province and the Dominion with reference to the transfer of the natural resources I did not at any time sec the minister or have any discussion with him by letter or otherwise in regard to the matter.

However, I must say that I saw the minister in Winnipeg, after the agreement was signed, and with a number of other members discussed the whole agreement with him. On that occasion I told the minister that since there was an agreement in existence between the province of Manitoba and the federal government with respect to 'the disposition of the natural resources, my position was that the federal government should stand by that agreement. I want this distinctly understood:	Had I been able to express myself
prior to the drawing up of this agreement I would have objected to the insertion of clause 6; however, I did not have the opportunity of doing so and rather than see the agreement jeopardized by any controversy, which certainly would not have any effect on a binding agreement of that kind, I withdrew any opposition I had to the Seven Sisters deal, because it was bound up with the general natural resources agreement.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Edgar Douglas Richmond Bissett: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock I had just stated that at the time of my last interview with the Minister of the Interior the agreement between the province of Manitoba and the Dominion government relative to the transfer of the natural resources had been concluded. Consequently, I found I was in the position of having either to oppose the whole natural resources agreement or to accept it in toto, and inasmuch as the Seven Sisters power site was part of that agreement I was forced to withdraw any opposition I might have had to the Seven Sisters falls project going ahead. I contended then and I still contend that the Manitoba members should have been consulted prior to the inclusion of clause 6 in that agreement, but after considering the difficulty which has been encountered during the years since this natural resources agreement has been the subject of controversy within the province and within this house, I felt that I must not do anything which would in any way defeat that objective.
The resolution on the order paper reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources,-
Or the water-powers, as the amended resolution reads.
-under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.

Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps
I do not propose to vote for this resolution.
I contend, rightly or wrongly, that the disposition of the natural resources in any of the provinces is not a matter for parliament, but is a matter for the legislatures of the provinces concerned. If the province of Manitoba had had full control of its natural resources this question of the Seven Sisters power site would never have arisen in this house, and, therefore, I urge again the necessity of turning over the natural resources of each of the provinces to their respective owners with as little delay as possible. I do not think it is fair for the members for Manitoba to try to interfere in any way with the natural resources belonging to the provinces of Saskatchewan or Alberta. We have it on the word of the Prime Minister that agreements along the lines of the Manitoba agreement have been effected with the other provinces, so I do not think there is any necessity for this resolution.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I opposed and still oppose the alienation of the Seven Sisters power site in the public domain of the province of Manitoba and I regret that this very valuable power site is lost to the public ownership interests in that province. As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, the responsibility for this power site being handed over to private interests is a matter which rests entirely with the legislators of the province of Manitoba, and any criticisms I have to make will be made as a private citizen of that province and not as a member of this house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, just prior to the adjournment at six o'clock we listened to an address from the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). I have listened to that hon. gentleman on many occasions, but I have never seen him exhibit so much heat, so much power and so little light as he did this afternoon. He was anything but illuminating on this particular question. He did not seem to remember very much about dates, but he made one or two references to the Manitoba government having the right of the utilization of this site, and I asked him if he knew the date in 1927.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in 1927.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would be very glad to have the minister give me that date, because I have been looking over the correspondence which has been tabled and I am unable to find that particular letter.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put a question on the order paper. .


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is no need of my putting a question on the order paper when all the correspondence has been asked for in connection with the Seven Sisters site. The only intimation I can find, after a very hurried perusal of these documents, is where the Manitoba government on August 18th, 1928, relinquished claim to the site.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Bracken was given that assurance in my office in 1927.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was that a verbal assurance?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Of course this house is not acquainted with all the verbal assurances given by the minister with regard to the Seven Sisters falls.


Charles A. Stewart: I made that statement before and I simply reiterated it to-day.	[DOT]	[DOT]


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not disputing that that statement was made, but I do think when a provincial government is offered its resources with a possible development of about 225,000 horse-power it requires something more than a mere verbal assurance from the minister; I think there should have been something in writing.


Charles A. Stewart: No waterpower site has been handed over by me without the consent of Premier Bracken, or any other western premier.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is quite correct. All
I wanted to know was whether there was anything in writing, some time in 1927, between the two governments in connection with the provincial government having the right to develop this site, apart altogether from the verbal assurance the minister informs the house he gave the Premier of Manitoba in 1927. Again looking up the correspondence tabled in the house last week, what do I find? On June 7, 1927, the following letter was addressed to J. T. Johnston, director of water-powers, Ottawa:
Dear Sir,
I hereby apply for a priority permit for the right to develop .power on the reach of the Winnipeg river known as "Seven Sisters" in accordance with plans which are now _ being prepared and will be submitted to you in the near future.
It is desirous to have the permit issued in the name of a company which is now in process of incorporation. As soon as it has advanced sufficiently I shall furnish you with the name of the company in question, and which of course will be a subsidiary of Winnipeg Electric Company.
63S	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps
This is a continuation of the negotiations which have been carried on for some time with your department relative to power development at the above site.
Yours truly,
. (Signed) E. Anderson,
Counsel.
This is from the Winnipeg Electric Company applying to the department at Ottawa for a priority permit for the development of this site. I would venture to state that when the company made application for this priority permit in 1927 they were pretty certain they were going to have the site. There is, of course, nothing on record to prove that. I am only expressing an opinion and I will support my opinion with one or two other letters that are on file. I read now a letter dated August 23, 1927, from the Winnipeg Electric Company, legal department, to J. T. Johnston, director of water-pow.ers, Ottawa, Ontario:
Dear Sir: We have incorporated the Northwestern Power Company Limited under Dominion charter and it is in the name of this company that we desire to have the priority permit issued in respect of the Seven Sisters development,
Yours truly,
(Signed) E. Anderson,
Counsel.


Mr. RALSTON:: Might I suggest that the hon. member read the answer to the first letter he just read, that of June 7? It would indicate the attitude of the minister.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Certainly. This is a letter
dated June 13, 1927, from the Department of the Interior, addressed to E. Anderson, Esquire, counsel, legal department Winnipeg Electric Company:
Sir: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 7, applying for a priority permit for the right to develop power on the reach of the Winnipeg river known as the Seven Sisters, in accordance with plans which are now being prepared and which will be submitted in the near future.
I note that it is desired to have the permit issued in the name of a company which is now in process of incorporation and that as soon as this has advanced sufficiently you will furnish me with the name of the company in question. It is noted further that this application is a continuation of the negotiations which have been carried on for some time with this department relative to power development at the above site.
As you are aware, in view of our commitments to the province in reapeet to the development of this Seven Sisters reach, it will be necessary to have an exchange of views between all parties concerned, centering around the securing of the maximum possible power output from the combined Pinawa-Seven Sisters reach, before any final commitment will be 
made by this department. In the meantime, pending the receipt of your further material in support of your application, your application for a priority permit is duly recorded on our files.
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) J. T. Johnston,
Director.
But I notice there is nothing on file from the Manitoba government.


Charles A. Stewart: If I infer correctly, the hon. member is endeavouring to prove that we were blocking the Manitoba government's attempts to get this power site. In view of what he is endeavouring to do, may I ask this question: did Mr. Bracken or anyone in the Manitoba government ever suggest that they had a priority permit for that pow-er site?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am not making any such suggestion just now.


Charles A. Stewart: What is the hon. member trying to do?


Abraham Albert Heaps: What I want to point out is that the minister has on more than one occasion stated that -the provincial government were advised of everything that was taking place in reference to this power development.


Charles A. Stewart: Absolutely.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Were the provincial government advised immediately after June 7, when this communication was signed by the minister's department, that the Winnipeg Electric Company had made application for a priority permit?


Charles A. Stewart: They were kept advised of everything. Not only that, but my hon. friend well knows that from 1927 onwards they were negotiating with the Winnipeg Electric Company about this very matter, and there certainly was no attempt on our part to hide or withhold anything from the Manitoba government. The contrary is the case.


Abraham Albert Heaps: To me it is rather surprising that if the Manitoba government were being kept advised of everything that was taking place here, -there were no communications sent from the department to the Manitoba government.


Charles A. Stewart: May I refer the hon. member to the letter written by Mr. Bracken in which he states that he has now made a satisfactory arrangement with the

Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps
Winnipeg Electric Company and asks that his priority permit do not have precedence, but points out that if I refuse to deal with the Winnipeg Electric he wants to be put back in the old position. That is on the files.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That communication was
some time in 192S.


Charles A. Stewart: I am speaking of the whole proceeding. That communication came from Premier Bracken to me and it is direct evidence that he, at all events, felt he had priority in connection with the permit.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am a little at a loss fully to understand the minister in his statements. I would very much like to follow him and endeavour to find a basis for his argument; but in this correspondence that has been tabled there are only three or four letters for the whole of 1927 and nothing to show that the provincial government knew what negotiations were taking place between the minister or the head of his department and the Winnipeg Electric Company, and all I can go by is what is actually on record. I do not know what conversations took place between the minister and the Manitoba government.


Charles A. Stewart: I am asking the hon. member not to depend on conversations but on the letter which is a clear indication that during the whole proceeding the Manitoba government had no other idea than that they occupied a priority position, which they did.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If they did, it was only in a verbal sense anad not in a written sense. I think that is fairly clear from the statements made this evening by the minister himself.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not going to argue further with my hon. friend.


Abraham Albert Heaps: All I am trying to do is to get the facts.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, my hon. friend has them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I would be satisfied if I had them and I will have to place my interpretation upon the correspondence tabled. Nobody in Manitoba seemed to know in 1927 that a company had been formed for the purpose of taking over the Seven Sisters site. It came as a distinct surprise to me and it was only lately that most people in Manitoba became aware of the fact. When we met the minister in conversations on so many occasions last year I do not think any statement was made in reference to any
company having been formed for the purpose of taking over this particular power site. In October and November of 1928 the same company wrote to the department in regard to lands which were then being acquired by private individuals, protesting against those people obtaining lands because they thought if those lands were obtained, the development of the power site might be in some way interfered with. The Manitoba government never wrote about that. They never made any protest about this land being obtained by those private individuals. It was practically all a matter of negotiations that were carried on between the private corporation and the government.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not propose to let my hon. friend during the course of the debate get away with any insinuations in regard to the matter. I told him to-night, speaking before six o'clock, that the Winnipeg Electric had those lands secured in 1906-he will find that if he will refer to his notes- and that negotiations had been pending for more than eighteen months between the company and the Manitoba government in respect to the matter. Evidently at that time the company felt that they were going to make an arrangement with the Manitoba government. I have no knowledge of that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister has just stated that in 1906 the Winnipeg Electric Company was buying up land.


Charles A. Stewart: Around the
Seven Sisters.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Did not the minister say
that there was no land being bought up m 1927 by the Winnipeg Electric Company?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I did
not say anything of the kind; you are saying that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Agents secured land for the
company near the site of the Seven Sisters falls. Allow me to read this letter from Mr. Anderson, counsel of the Winnipeg Electric Company, addressed to the water-powers branch, under the date of October 28, 1927:
I am informed that someone has applied for homestead rights, or right to purchase two legal subdivisions 9 and 10, section 25, township 30, range 11, east. As this land is in the vicinity of Seven Sisters falls it would be reserved for *water-tpower purposes.
I understand the Dominion Lands office here is to give an answer to the applicant on or before the 25th November. Perhaps you will be good enough to take this up with the proper department at Ottawa and see that the land is reserved for water-power purposes.

Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps
There is another letter of a similar character in regard to people who were contemplating building summer cottages in that district, and the government was asked to try to prevent them from building because of the damages that might subsequently ensue.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Was not that the right
thing to do?


Abraham Albert Heaps: They seemed to have a pretty good idea at that time as to what was going to be done. That was in October, 1927.
The minister told us this afternoon that his department had made a very good contract with the company. Well, about ten days ago one of the directors of the Winnipeg Electric Company was on the stand in Winnipeg giving evidence, and1 he said that the company had also made a pretty good contract with the government. I leave it to the ordinary member to say which party would be likely to get the best of such a bargain. Having had a little experience with these public utility corporations myself, I have no hesitation in saying that there is no contract which the minister or his department could enter into with a private corporation that could not be shot full of holes. No contract is proof against the wiles of lawyers when it comes to shooting holes in it. I have had that experience in Winnipeg, and thirty or fifty years from now you will find -this agreement so hedged around in a thousand ways that it will be almost impossible for the people of Manitoba to own that utility.
For the benefit of one of my hon. friends from Manitoba who thought the government had done very well in this contract, and asked how much the site was really worth, let me juote from the financial page of a newspaper which certainly will not be accused of public ownership tendencies, the Montreal Star. In its issue of January 25, 1929, about six weeks ago, it had this -to say, in a little item on its financial page, headed "Seven Sisters Power":
Seven Sisters Power
"The Seven Sisters Power financial plan will be announced shortly and it is understood that Winnipeg Electric will be given 80 per cent of the common stock of the company," state O'Brien & Williams, members of the Montreal Stock Exchange. The item adds: "When Winnipeg was handed 60,000 shares of Manitoba Power, under similar circumstances nothing was thought o-f the transaction yet the Manitoba Power shares last year sold far over $100 on the market and it was rumored that control of Manitoba could have been sold for 200. As Winnipeg now owns 100,000 shares of Manitoba people did not need a pencil to calculate that Winnipeg had been given an asset on a silver platter that might be conserva-
tively valued at from $15,000,000 to $20,000,000. The believers in Winnipeg Electric, with the Seven Sisters project in mind, are expecting history to repeat itself".
That will give bon. members some idea of the value people on the stock exchange attach to the power site.
Let me give this other illustration for the benefit of some of my hon. friends from Manitoba. There was a proposal made for the canalization on the St. Lawrence waterway which has come to be known as the Beauhar-nois scheme. People were prepared to develop that canalization scheme for nothing, provided they got the rights to the power incidental to its development. I am informed by what 1 believe to be reliable authorities that the total amount of horse-power that could be developed in the Beauharnois project is about equal to the water-power that could be developed at Seven Sisters. Putting one project against the other, you get some idea of the value of the Seven Sisters power site on a commercial basis.
My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre put the value of the site at 828,000,000. I want to give you another idea of its value, particularly for the benefit of my friends from Manitoba. When the Manitoba members were discussing this project one day with Mr. Anderson of the Winnipeg Electric Company, who now is its president, he put the value of 35,000 horse-power at the Pinawa plant, where the rights run in perpetuity, at $15,000,000. That was no doubt a very high estimate, but if you reduce that considerably, and calculate the value of the Seven Sisters site on the same basis, it would be worth in the neighbourhood of $40,000,000, not $28,000,000. Those who are in touch with water-power development estimate that two dollars per horse-power per year would not be a very high figure for a power development such as that at Seven Sisters, and at that rate of two dollars per horse-power per year, for 200,000 horse-power continued for some thirty to fifty years-well, hon. gentlemen opposite can very easily calculate what that site should be worth in dollars and cents.
I want to deal for a few moments with one or two remarks that were made in this debate by some of my hon. friends from the province of Manitoba. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen), speaking the other day, seemed to castigate me because I had suggested that when the hon. member and some of his friends went to the Royal Alexandra hotel in Winnipeg to meet the minister, they met in a back room. Of course I knew very well that when the minister went to the hotel to consult with the Manitoba members and

Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps
deal with the question of the Seven Sisters site he would not meet them in a back room of the Royal Alexandra or any other hotel. I knew that he would have a suite of rooms befitting the dignity of a minister, and meet the members in a nice, large, airy room. What I implied was that it was a room that the public had not access to. I was using the words in a metaphorical sense; I meant that they met in a room to which the press did not have access, and where the people of Manitoba did not know what was going on. I am sure the hon. member for Marquette would admit that the people of Manitoba were vitally interested in what the disposition of the site was going to be. So far as the seven members who were present are concerned, I have really little to say.


Mr. DUFF:: One for each sister.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not wish to make any
references to that; that more becomes my hon. friend.
Speaking the other day on this question, the hon. member for Marquette made the following statement, which I do not think was altogether in keeping with the remarks he has made previously on this question. He said:
The lease was granted by this government on the request by order in council of the government of Manitoba. There was the considered opinion of the province of Manitoba asking that the lease be granted to a particular company, and expressed in the form of an order in council, and this government naturally acceeded to that request, as they were bound to do.
When my hon. friend considers the statement which he made I think he will agree with me that it does not do his previous utterances justice. He will not say for one moment that the opinions expressed by the Premier of Manitoba were the considered opinions of the province. They certainly were not. Perhaps I could not answer the hon. member for Marquette better than by reading the telegram which he sent to the Minister of the Interior on September 8, 1928, and which will be found in the correspondence tabled last week. When the hon. member, along with the other members from Manitoba, received a telegram from the Minister of the Interior to the effect that he had made the best agreement possible, my hon. friend sent this message in reply:
Received your wire. Regret decision that federal government should give lease. I still feel you should hand over all documents to provincial government and they attend to completion of them. Correspondence should be immediately published and you should have no dealings with company.


James Allison Glen: Exactly my position.
7S594-41


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quite agree with that
statement, but I do not agree with the statement the hon. gentleman made in this house on Friday last. The two are at complete variance. Undoubtedly if the Minister of the Interior had handed over this power site to the provincial government to deal with as they saw fit, they would have been compelled to submit their decision to the legislature, and I would have had no fault to find with the action of the minister.


Charles A. Stewart: Oh yes, you would.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think the hon. minister is a little bit too presumptuous.


Charles A. Stewart: Not a particle.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have given the minister
no occasion to be offensive. This afternoon he made certain remarks which I resented, and if other members conducted the debate in the same way, as did the minister, this house would be denied all opportunity of intelligent discussion. He .pointed to this comer of the house and accused the members sitting here of not knowing what they were talking about. I would not make such a remark in reference to any hon. member, no matter in what corner of the house he happened to sit. In making a statement of that character I am forced to the conclusion that the minister was not acquainted with all the facts. It is just possible that some of us who are criticizing his action may have some little understanding of the situation so far as hydroelectric development in the city of Winnipeg is concerned. Prior to my becoming a member of this house I spent almost nine years in the city council of Winnipeg, and during the major part of that time I was closely identified with the hydro-electric development in relation to the city's public utilities. When the minister taunts us in this comer with not knowing what we are talking about on hydroelectric development, it seems to me he should be a little better grounded in his facts.


Charles A. Stewart: I did not
make that particular statement-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: I think I
am in order; when I am out of order I will resume my seat. The statement I made this afternoon had reference only to this particular lease that we are discussing. I am not accusing my hon. friend of not knowing all about the Winnipeg Electric. .



Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps


Abraham Albert Heaps: This lease, Mr. Speaker, is
very closely bound up with hydro-electric development in Winnipeg. No other part of Manitoba has the same vital interest in the terms of the lease as have the people of that city.


James Allison Glen: Will you allow me a question? In reference to some words of mine that the hon. member quoted, I do not wish to accuse him of misleading the house as to what I intended to say; but if he will look at what I said he will appreciate that I was speaking with regard to the lease. I said that that, lease was granted at the request of the government of Manitoba through an order in council, and I went further and said that the federal government naturally acceded to that request. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that already this government had undertaken to deal with the power site at the wish and pleasure of the province of Manitoba, and they were naturally bound to do so?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is the hon. member's explanation, and he has read exactly what I read. Consequently I do not see that I can be accused of misquoting him.


James Allison Glen: The hon. member is not misquoting, but he attempted to convey something different from what I intended to convey.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I do not think I conveyed anything except what is stated by the hon. gentleman himself. I am afraid I did not know what his intentions were in the matter, but I am ready to give him credit for good intentions.
White the agreement was made some time in July, I think if no arrangement had been made between the province of Manitoba and the federal government-again I am only expressing an opinion-the lease anyhow would have been made to the Winnipeg Electric Company. In my opinion the lease of July was only a more respectable way of handing over the power site than if it had been dealt with directly. It also afforded a very good reason for some of my hon. friends to be able to say: Now that the federal government have agreed to hand over its natural resources to the province of Manitoba, we cannot oppose the action of the government. The very haste with which the lease was made in the early part of July of last year lends weight to that particular interpretation.


James Allison Glen: It is an opinion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, it is an opinion on which we both differ. My hon. friend knows 
how to hold to his opinion; I shall hold to mine; and in the ultimate I suppose the people of Manitoba will be the judges.
I intend, Mr. Speaker, to vote for the amendment. Not because it happens to be moved by a member of the Conservative party; I would have'voted for it had it come from any other section of the house. One of the first things I did this session was to ask the right hon. Prime Minister, in connection with the St. Lawrence development, whether the house would be given an opportunity to discuss the question. I am in favour of all these important questions being dealt with by parliament, not by order in council. I believe that is good Liberal doctrine. I know it is characteristic for the Conservative party to become Liberal when in opposition, and for the Liberal party to become Conservative when in power. Evidently we are witnessing such a phenomenon at the present time on the question of orders in council. I remember very well that one of the very last speeches by the grand old chieftain of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, was delivered in the city of Ottawa in January of 1019, and it was a scathing denunciation of government by order in council. I oppose government by order in council, whether it has to do with the Beauhamois scheme or with the Seven Sisters scheme. If the province of Manitoba were in full possession of their natural resources, I could have no objection whatsoever to any disposition that the provincial government might make of this particular power site. But the Manitoba government did not have that power last year when they requested the Dominion government to hand over the Seven Sisters power site to the Winnipeg Electric Company. If this resolution we are now considering had been in effect a year ago, then I believe we should all have been better off for it; and the fact that it would have been a good thing a year ago is no argument that it is not a good thing to-day. It merely indicates that we are somewhat late in having a motion of this character discussed by the house. The resolution is not aimed at Saskatchewan or Alberta or any of the other provinces. I believe that if this resolution were adopted by this house such questions as the Beau-harnois development on the St. Lawrence would also of necessity have to come to the house for ratification. And why not? After all this house has to assume the final responsibility.
This afternoon I listened to the very eloquent speech of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). The hon. gentleman spoke

Natural Resources-Mr. Dunning
of what would happen in the event of the delay that would be occasioned if this house approved of this resolution for the ratification of water-power leases. But what is happening now in connection with the Seven Sisters lease? Has not the Manitoba government, even at this late hour, said to its legislature that it intends submitting to that body the agreement for ratification? Does not that in itself indicate that delay is not of such great consequence? When a power development is under consideration, covering a lease of fifty years or probably longer, then a delay of three or four months is of little consequence to the people of the Dominion. Moreover, these private corporations who intend to develop these natural resources are not undertaking their development from philanthropic motives; they are developing them because they believe it will be profitable. I am sure, therefore, that these financial corporations could very well afford to wait a few months until parliament could ratify an agreement. Consequently I am in favour of the amendment, which has now been restricted to water-powers. The case of Alberta has been cited by my hon. friend from East Calgary (Mr. Adshead). I want to assure him that there is no analogy between Alberta and Manitoba; the two cases are entirely different. Alberta has no publicly owned development; the development there is carried on by private utilities. In Manitoba, however, we have a very large development by publicly owned utilities and a large development by private enterprise, and in my opinion if Alberta were in the same position as we are in in the province of Manitoba they would be fighting for their power rights just as the members from Winnipeg are fighting.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Did not the government
of the Dominion consult the Premier of Alberta, and not the legislature?


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is perfectly true; he
did. At the same time, let me point out, he did not consult with the members from the province of Alberta, whereas in this case the minister consulted with the members from Manitoba, giving them an undertaking that no action would be taken until they had composed their differences. And no hon. member will get up to-day and say that we have composed our differences. We are almost in the same position as we were in last year; we have not composed our differences. Consequently, when that statement was made by the Minister of the Interior on the 6th June, 1928, we accepted his pledge implicitly; and because he gave that pledge we decided to 78594-411
take no further action in parliament. Had the minister stated on June 6, 1928, that it was his intention to hand over the site to the private company for development, ways and means would have been found in this house of testing the feeling of the house as to whether that was the right and proper thing to do. We therefore let the opportunity go by last year, when we had that opportunity, because of a statement made in this house, and consequently we have a right to feel somewhat disappointed at the attitude of the minister on the question. I am not questioning that he did what he considered to be in the best interests of all concerned, but I question whether he used the best judgment in the circumstances. And there is, of course, a big difference between the two.
In a way I am sorry to see the fight between the private and public utilities of Manitoba brought into discussion on the floor of the house; I should prefer to have seen the question fought out in Manitoba. And had the matter been fought there I am satisfied on which side the people of Manitoba would have stood. There is no question about it. One of the reasons why the Premier of Manitoba did not want that agreement sent direct from the government to the private company was the fact that he was not too anxious to submit the matter to the legislature of Manitoba. He was not sure whether the legislature would adopt it. We see what has happened in that province. I am safe in saying that the Premier of Manitoba to-day has completely lost the confidence of the people of that province.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are my Liberal friends
coming to the support of the Premier of Manitoba?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): The resolution now before the house, with the amendment thereto, is fraught with such serious consequences to industrial development in the prairie provinces that I cannot allow the discussion to close without contributing some remarks on the subject.
One of the great problems of Canadian development in the past twenty-five years has been the fact that there has been comparatively little industrial development in western Canada while there has been a very marked industrial development in the east. During the past few years a change has come about and western Canada is now experiencing a greater industrial development than at any
644	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Dunning
period in its history-an industrial development which I feel sure will go far to maintain that balance between agriculture and industry which is a necessity if a country is to be permanently prosperous.
The resolution as drawn on the record is entirely impractical; it would involve in effect an act of parliament for the disposition of any of the resources presently administered by the Dominion in the .three prairie provinces, whether those resources be land, water-powers, minerals, coal, timber or anything else -a situation which does not obtain in any of the other provinces of Canada which control their own resources. I gather from the discussion that the resolution was framed in order to give my hon. friend who introduced it (Mr. Woodsworth), and others, an opportunity of expressing in this house their views in connection with the particular disposition of the Seven Sisters falls rather than an opportunity for discussing the whole broad general question as it relates to the three prairie provinces.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have already
said that such was not my purpose in introducing the resolution.


Charles Avery Dunning: The discussion has been Very generally directed to that one transaction, and I think my hon. friend will agree with me that he did not advance very cogent reasons for the adoption of his resolution in its wide application, as indicated by its language. He did not advance cogent reasons as to why, for instance, the land policy of the Dominion with respect to western Canada should be wiped out, why that great body of law which has been built up in the fifty years since confederation, to control the actions of the minister and of the government in administering the resources, should be abolished with a scratch of the pen, as would be necessary if the resolution were adopted, so that the policy -should be followed of saying to every one, "Well, we cannot tell you whether you can get this piece of land, or timber, or water-power, or these minerals: you will have to wait until parliament acts", -the parliament of Canada being the House of Commons and the Senate in parliament assembled. That is what his .resolution means, and I am in the judgment of the house as to whether my hon. friend did advance any cogent reasons why such an important change in public policy should be brought about at the present time. I am concerned with it, I say, because of the industrial development presently taking place in western Canada, a

development largely based upon the natural resources of that part of Canada which are now receiving, in one way or another, greater attention tihan has been the ease previously in the history of the country.
Let us take one stream and consider the effect of the amendment relating to water-powers; take the Winnipeg river. The water in the Winnipeg river, so long as it remains in the province of Ontario, could be disposed of by an order in council from Queen's Park, Toronto, but once that water passed the boundary of Manitoba, if my hon. friend's amendment carried, an act of this parliament, confirmed by the senate, would be required before any use could be made of it. That is the ridiculous situation which would be brought about by the amendment moved by the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) in connection with just that one stream.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask as a
matter of fact whether the development of the upper reaches of the Winnipeg river is not handled by this government for the welfare of Canada as a whole?


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not believe that is a fact. The government of Canada have cooperated in conservation matters on that particular river, but I am in the judgment of the Minister of the Interior as to whether the disposition of the water-power of the Winnipeg river in Ontario is not in the hands of the provincial government. The moment the water passes into the province of Manitoba, however, if the amendment moved by the acting leader of the opposition went into effect, an act of parliament would be necessary to make it available to the industries of Manitoba.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not want to interrupt-


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend has made two speeches on this subject already, and I propose to take up only ten or fifteen minutes of the time of the house. I do not wish to make any insinuations about my hon. friend's motives in moving this resolution; I believe him to be quite sincere, but I do think he displayed bad judgment in the drafting of the resolution. I will not say of him unkind things such as he has said of the Minister of the Interior, but I have some knowledge of the difficulties with which the minister has to deal in connection with these matters of leases and so on, and I know that no man who has

Natural Resources-Mr. Dunning
occupied that position has guarded the public interest more meticulously than lias the present Minister of the Interior.
Then let us pass on from the water in the Winnipeg river; let us consider the prospector who is in the Rocky mountains looking for a ledge of gold or some other precious or base metal. When he found that ledge, if my hon. friend's system were in vogue he would have to worry about which side of the divide he was on, and sometimes in the Rocky mountains it is rather difficult to tell which side of the divide you are on. If he were on the British Columbia side he could go to the office of the nearest mining recorder and there and then get possession of his claim subject to the laws of the province, but if my hon. friend's system were in operation and his find happened to be on the Alberta side of the divide, an act of this parliament confirmed by the senate would be necessary before that prospector could do anything. Surely that is an absurd situation. As I say, this parliament has taken fifty years to build up a body of law which will ensure that successive ministers will administer these resources in the best interests of the people of the country. Parliament is made acquainted each year, through documents tabled here, with the manner in which the minister for the time being has been discharging his stewardship, and of the hundreds and thousands of dispositions which have taken place and which have been reported to this house, the only one to be discussed during the course of this debate is that in connection with the Seven Sisters falls.
Now may I refer to the policy of taking advice from the provincial governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta with respect to the disposition of their important resources. I want to say that ever since the present government came into office in 1921 the Minister of the Interior has consistently followed the policy of consulting the western governments with respect to the disposition of major resources of this character. He consistently consulted me during the time I was premier of my province; I know he has consistently consulted the premier of Alberta and the premier of Manitoba as well during that period. Is that policy wrong? It is an acknowledgment of what we were debating in this house the other day; it is an acknowledgment that with respect to these resources in these three prairie provinces the Dominion is in reality a trustee. These provinces have had responsible government for nearly twenty-five years. Who then should speak for the people of these provinces if not
the responsible governments elected by the people? How can this government expect to secure information with respect to what the people of a province require if not from the government of that province? What would be said if we refused to regard a statement made by the government of Ontario or the government of Quebec, as expressing the wili of the people of these provinces? One has only to imagine it.


Mr. BOIVIN:: We would not put up with
it.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what we would
have to put up with in the west if the sort of thing advocated by the resolution and the amendment were permitted.
I listened with a great deal of interest and pleasure to the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. McRae); I was very much interested in what he said in respect to waterpower and the desirability of public control- and I use those words "public control" advisedly, because that does not always involve public development even in the public-ownership province of Ontario. However, I suggest that my hon. friend was preaching to the wrong congregation this afternoon. When be spoke, and spoke truly, of the situation which has developed in the United States he did not answer his own obvious question, "Why has it developed?" It has developed because in the United States, as in Canada, there is a federal system of government and the states do control their own water-power. He cited one instance which proved that point, when he referred to the very excellent laws on the statute books of the State of California for the control of water-powers within that state. Yes, that is true; the laws are on the Statute books of the state of California, and not on those of the congress of the United States. His arguments were splendid, but they were addressed to the wrong body.
However, I agree that his argument would apply with respect to the Northwest territories lying north of our existing provinces; I think my hon. friend made reference to the Northwest territories and the wonderful water-powers on the northern rivers. It seems a strange thing that after starting to deal with all the resources of the country the discussion finally narrows down to water-powers, and then practically altogether to the water-power of the middle west. My hon. friend even left those alone; he was inclined to concede that with respect to the resources of the western provinces the governments of those provinces should be considered, and then he went away

Natural Resources-Mr. Dunning
off to the north of the existing boundaries of our western provinces, although I venture to say that not a single water-power has been alienated in that region as yet, because no one wants them. I agree that it is well for this parliament and for all the provincial legislatures having these matters within their control to bear in mind what my hon. friend said with regard to the necessity of conserving these great resources for the maximum benefit to the public to whom they belong, but again it is a question of whose jurisdiction obtains. If this parliament or any member of it set up .a claim to-day to the water-powers of the province of Quebec or those of the province of Ontario I can just see my hon. friends opposite rising in their serried ranks to protest against any such claim on the ground of provincial rights. We have often heard that cry in this house, but we in the west possess provincial rights just as much as they are possessed in the older provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Mr. HOCKEN:: You have not got them.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are progressing in
that direction, and this government has made greater progress in that way than any othct government since the provinces were formed, and we intend to continue along that. line. The criticism which has been directed against the Minister of the Interior has been directed against him because he has gone further in an acknowledgement of the provincial rights of the province of Manitoba than any other minister of the interior ever went. That is the reason for all the criticism, and that government is not regarded as a supporter of this government politically; it is a Progressive government.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What is the difference?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will let hon. gentlemen in the corner speak and vote for themselves in that regard. My hon. friends do not seem to have much difficulty in cooperating with them on some matters this session, and we will just see how that works out in the course of time.
There can be no question in the mind of anyone that the minister acted in accordance ' with the desires of the government of Manitoba, a government which must be presumed a responsible government, responsible to the legislature of that province. Let me apply the principle to the province of Alberta. Would anyone in this house say that if the government of Alberta were consulted, as is frequently the case, by the Minister of the Interior with respect to the disposition of
[Mr. Dunninir.J
major resources of that province, the minister should ignore the recommendation of the province, and regard that government as not representing their province?


Mr. IRVINE:: Precisely what he has done.


Charles A. Stewart: Where?


William Irvine: Spray lakes.


Charles A. Stewart: I deny that charge, and I want the hon. member to take it back. At no stage did I not consult with the province of Alberta.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the hon. member is
correct, then the Minister of the Interior is to get it coming and going; he is to be wrong if he does consult with the provincial government and take their view's, and he is to be wrong if he does not consult with them. Applying the principle of public ownership to the province which is the best known throughout the world for public ownership development of electrical power-the province of Ontario-I believe I am correct in saying that power sites are disposed of to private interests; not all the power sites in the province of Ontario are held for ever until they can be incorporated in the provincially owned power system. I do not blame the province of Ontario for doing this; they are dealing with a condition and not a theory. There are areas in the northern part of that province similar to the northern parts of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta where great developments are in prospect; where for many years there can be but one user of the electrical powers created. I do not blame the Ontario government for saying in such cases, " You can have this power to develop, but it must be developed under certain terms." That is precisely what is happening in the northern parts of Manitoba and Saskatchewan; I do not know so much about Alberta.
If any such amendment as this passed the house, carrying with it as it would the necessity of amending the law, it would tend to strangle, as nothing else could, the industrial development of the resources of northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan. Why is that? In certain parts of this country it is possible to get coal for the purpose of developing the large base metal resources, but in these northern parts it is necessary on economic grounds to use electricity, and that electricity can only be secured from one source, the streams and falls which are there. Shall we refuse to allow that development to go on? Shall we say to everyone, "You must take the chance of running the gauntlet of parliament"? This house could do nothing which would be more sure of stifling and

Natural Resources-Mr. Geary
strangling the industrial development of the northern parts of those western provinces than to pass this resolution or the amendment and to amend the laws which would be necessary to be amended if the resolution or the amendment were passed. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, which are satisfactory to me, I intend to vote against both the resolution and the amendment.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, it may be assumed from the speeches of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) that water-powers as distinguished from other natural resources have some special attributes and characteristics. That being the case, it follows naturally that they are deserving of some special treatment, and this amendment, as I read it, provides that special treatment. The resolution, as amended, reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition, of the water-powers, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.
I understood the Prime Minister to say the other day that we would be breaking an agreement by the passing of this amendment -referring, I take it, to the agreement made with the province of Manitoba in July of last year. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker,
I cannot see how that could be. If that agreement entered into under an order in council in July last is a binding agreement as to resources under the control of the federal government, then this resolution cannot be said to be a breach of that agreement because it deals with the resources now under the control of the federal government. If the resources passed under that agreement from the control of the federal government no action of this house under the resolution could have any effect upon that contract. It has been said that we would be acting in breach of that agreement by discussing the matter in parliament and passing a resolution which refused to ratify the agreement. I say that is precisely what parliament is for, otherwise why do we bring conventions and protocols here for ratification? Simply to have the rubber stamp of parliament's approval put upon them, or to 'have discussions upon them and to ratify them when found proper? The Prime Minister, speaking only a few days ago on the proposed amendment to the Navigable AVaters Protection Act, told the house that there was already a clause in that act which would enable parliament to undo what had been done by order in council or through the granting of a permit under the provisions of that act. In principle that is the sort of thing
we are doing here to-day. AYe are discussing this matter after the thing has been done; whether it should have been done and whether or not it should be ratified. If we have not the power to change it no harm is done; if it requires ratification we are within our rights in refusing ratification. In any case we have the satisfaction of having the whole question disclosed and aired in the house. I think the resolution as it now reads will find ready acceptance by the member for AVinnipeg South Centre (Mr' Thorson), and perhaps by the member for South AVinnipeg (Mr. Mc-Diarmid), who seems to have agreed throughout the negotiations with the member first
named.	.	.
I do not think the member for AVinnipeg South Centre is in the house, but he will recognize the words he used and which are found in Hansard o,f February 28, 1929, on page 559. He was there discussing clause 6 of the agreement entered into with the province of Manitoba in July of last year, and he says, at the bottom of the page:
I have this criticism to make, namely, that the change in policy was so vital tnat it should not have become effective until ratified by parliament. and that a rider should have been attached to clause 6 of the natural resources agreement to the effect that until the fundamental change in the policy of administering the resources had been approved by parliament, the change of policy indicated by clause o should not go into effect.
On the same page, he has the following to say:	_ #
In view of the differences of opinion that existed in this house; in view of the differences of opinion that existed in Manitoba; m view of the undertaking which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) gave on the floor ot this house, and in view of the developments that have taken place, I think it would have been a wise course to follow to take the view that before this fundamental change in the policy of administering the natural resources of Manitoba should come into effect, it should he ratified by parliament. That would have been in the interests of all concerned here; it would certainly have been in the interests ot the government of Manitoba which finds itself in such difficulties to-day.
I assume that the member for AVinnipeg South Centre, and the members of the house who agree with that hon. gentleman and have agreed with him throughout these negotiations, cannot do otherwise than support the amendment now before the house.
I am not so sure about the member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). There have been occasions when that hon. gentleman has been decidedly of one opinion, but when the time came for a vote he cast his vote the other way, and I believe that is his case to-day. Let me remind the house of what the member for Marquette said when this matter was
64S

Natural Resources-Mr. Geary
under discussion on the 28th of February last. His remarks will be found on page 543 of Hansard and what his concern was throughout the negotiations with the Minister of the Interior is stated as follows:
We were determined to do all in our power to delay the issuance of that lease until the representatives o_f the people of Manitoba had had an opportunity of declaring themselves on the matter in the legislative assembly.
That is good doctrine, and if those hon. gentlemen are disposed to adhere to what they said at that time, the opportunity is still before them to see that this particular transaction and others like it are ratified in the house and come up for discussion and action before the legislative assembly of Manitoba. As regards the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), he can see no good whatever, now or at any previous time, in a member of the house holding views similar to those which have been expressed by my hon. friends from Marquette and Winnipeg South Centre. So in one case I would expect and in the other I would hope that when the yeas and nays are called for on this resolution, my two hon. friends, with those who have been closely associated with them, will be found voting in favour of the amendment now before the house. True, there is this to be said of the hon. member for Marquette, that he found himself at the end of his address able to say that he was supporting his government. He said:
, I believe that the province of Manitoba through its legislature is alone responsible to its citizens for what is done with that power site. Our duty ceased as soon as the agreement was arrived at between the Dominion government and the province.
I Submit to the house for its consideration whether that last clause is inspired by some sort of feeling of relief or of disappointment.
I do not propose to refer at any length to the controversy that has arisen between the Minister of the Interior and certain hon members representing constituencies in Manitoba; but it seems to me strange that the other night-and I regret to say this is the second time I have spoken on this matter-the minister interrupted me when I was speaking, and his interruption was welcomed, to say that when he answered the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) last year, he was referring to a difference of opinion, not between parties in the legislative assembly or parties amongst the citizen body of Winnipeg or of Manitoba, but existing among members from Manitoba m this house. My hon. friend narrowed that a little again to-night. He said that he was quite willing and ready at all times to discuss

matters with members representing constituencies in the particular province affected. He preferred to assuage the anxieties of the members from that particular province who were with him, thought as he did and sat on the same side of the house as he did. If it be a desirable thing that the Minister of the Interior, in discussing the affairs of his department and deciding what he is to do in carrying on those affairs, should consult any body of members of this house, even restricting that body to members of the house who are on the same side as he is then it seems to me a certain principle is admitted, namely, that all the members of the house are entitled to some opportunity for discussion and consideration of the action to be taken in regard to a transaction about to be consummated. Having admitted the principle, I cannot for the life of me see why he will not go the whole distance and say that, if it is proper to consult members from that particular province or even members from that province who sit on the same side of the house as he does, it is proper that he should consult all the members of parliament who are here and prepared to discuss matters of that sort. I think that was in the mind of the Minister of the Interior before, because there is in the file that was laid on the table a letter which shows conclusively that the question of having the legislature of Manitoba consider this particular transaction, the Seven Sisters falls, was before the parties who entered into the contract in August last, since Mr. Bracken writes to the Minister of the Interior as follows on 31st May, 1928. He had apparently been down here discussing the matter of the Seven Sisters falls with the Minister of the Interior. He begins his letter thus:
In view of some of the statements made to us in the conference in Ottawa on Friday last with regard to the provincial legislature dealing the power question, I am transmitting to you for your information. . . . press reports of what different members of the legislature have said.
Therefore I take it that at the conference with the Minister of the Interior it was considered proper by at least some members of the conference that the matter should be considered by the legislature of Manitoba before action was finally taken. That is carrying out precisely the views of my hon. friends from Marquette and Winnipeg South Centre.
There is just one comment I have to make on the famous letter of June 7, and I am not going to refer again to what my hon. friend's action seems to have been, writing so soon after, in fact the next day after he had in-

Natural Resources-Mr. Geary
formed the house, as he did, that there should be no further delay. He says in this letter:
In view of the fact that delay of a month or so will not injure the prospects of this development-
I commend that to the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean). As a matter of fact, the application was then practically one year old and applications for power development of any size-and power developments of any size are the only ones in which we are particularly concerned-do not suffer one bit by waiting over for a session of a legislature or of parliament. Everyone knows there is no enterprise or business undertaking that is so much sought for by certain monied interests as a water-power and its development. As a matter of fact, much higher prices may be realized if there is any delay in granting the lease or the right to develop the power. In any event it cannot be shown in a single instance the any damage would foe done in the case of any individual water-power, especially one of great size or potentiality, if the matter had to rest over. A company having a permit and knowing that it had to obtain the approval of parliament, no harm would be done by its having to wait for that length of time.
As a matter of fact, I doubt if there would be any difficulty as regards financing, because once having secured a permit and no great public question being aroused over the matter, people could go so far as to finance the whole proposition on the assumption that the matter would, being altogether honest, straightforward and aboveboard, be ratified at the next session of the legislature or of parliament.
It may be said at this point that there is no provision in the resolution for securing ratification by the provincial legislature, but that would be a mere quibble. We cannot legislate in regard to the provincial assembly; we can legislate in regard to our own action, and when we say by resolution that no alienation of a water-power shall be given until ratified by this parliament, we are by that very act giving time for the provincial assembly to make up its mind and make its deliberations in the case of that water-power and to communicate the result to parliament. I venture to say, that being done, there would never be the slightest suggestion that it would not be sanctioned by parliament after having been passed, by the provincial legislature concerned..
There is one feature to which I .must refer in connection with the meeting at which this agreement was so hurriedly come to. This was on July 3. The matter about which most
discussion arose, about which there was most concern, was what? Natural resources. The natural resources in the House of Commons are under the charge of the Minister of the Interior, and yet that meeting of representatives of the Dominion government and of the government of Manitoba met without the one man present who had the most to do with the whole transaction, and within whose knowledge it was whether or not the natural resources could be disposed of advantageously in any manner that might be suggested.
He did not know anything about it; he did not hear about it until after the whole thing had been done. Is it any wonder that my friends from Manitoba were slightly shocked to hear of the rapidity with which that particular transaction went through? Even after the door was locked, after that particular horse was stolen, they still had the consolation of meeting the minister at Winnipeg, at which meeting they made their .protest, not sorry, I should judge in some cases, to find that their protests were alii too late.
When that conference met in July, 1928, the ministers of the crown present knew, or if they did not they ought to have known, that there was great public discussion about the granting of a lease to a private corporation for the development of power at the Seven Sisters falls. That was a very important public matter. It was not a matter that was heard of merely round the comer; it was discussed in all the newspapers and formed the main topic of news and editorial writing for a very considerable time. It was a matter of the highest importance to the people of the city of Winnipeg, and yet it had not been heard of, according to the Prime Minister, it was not made a note of in carrying on the discussions and the negotiations, and it was not mentioned when the final agreement was carried through.
We are not discussing, I take it, so much what will happen in regard to this or that water-power. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has made his whole attack upon the inconvenience in point of time that would occur because the granting of a lease had to await action by this house. What I take it is the point and the whole point of this discussion is whether or not we have abandoned to the government, to the executive, entirely so that we cannot have it back, the power of dealing with the vast natural resources, not by order in council, but by parliament in free and open discussion. That, it seems to me, is the point at issue here, and not the consideration of any question of mere delay being caused by the adoption of a rule that the


Mr. CAHILL:: Would my hon. friend support the resolution if it applied to the water-powers of Ontario?


George Reginald Geary: I certainly would. In
further answer to the question, may I say I am very sorry that it has not been obligatory upon the executive of the province of Ontario to refer such matters to the legislature foi ratification.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct the attention of the house for a very few minutes to what has been said with regard to the correspondence which passed between the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), the government of Manitoba, and the other parties
in connection with the transaction under discussion. I feel that perhaps the house has not appreciated the effect of the correspondence quoted by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) between the Minister of the Interior and the Premier of Manitoba prior to February, 1928. There seemed to be a disposition on the part of some hon. members to suggest bad faith on the part of my colleague and I was glad to-night to hear the assurance that the criticism was directed simply to the minister's exercise of judgment. But that does not fit in very well with the construction which was sought to be placed on some of the correspondence. A telegram of February 6, 1928, was read which had been sent by my friend the minister intimating that the Winnipeg Electric Company had not made any further request. In order to contradict that statement or to make it appear that it was not true certain letters were quoted, one of August 7, 1927-this was a wrong date; I think the hon. member will find the correct date was August 23, and two others of October 28 and November 18, 1927. The three letters referred to were not in any way contradictory of what had been said by the Minister of the Interior; they simply followed the original application of the Winnipeg Electric Company, the letter of August 23, 1927, gave the name of the company to whom it was desired the license should be given if any was to be issued. The letter of October 2S simply suggested that the status quo be preserved, and that applications for homestead rights had better be reserved. For what? Not for the Winnipeg Electric, but, as the letter itself shows, for the development of water-powers. Exactly the same sort of suggestion appears in the letter of November 18, 1927, in which it is proposed that it would perhaps be as well not to have settlers put improvements on the land, in view of the fact that applications for power leases were outstanding.
Now, what applications were outstanding at that time? Not simply the application of the Winnipeg Electric but the application as well of the province of Manitoba. All these letters amounted to were simply suggestions by one of the applicants that the land be so maintained that water-power leases could be granted if the government so decided. Very different altogether from the suggestion that my hon. friend the minister was in some way or other endeavouring to mislead those with whom he was communicating by stating that the company was not "urging" the lease. What was proposed was, I think, a perfectly proper and logical and natural thing for any applicant to suggest. I will not detain the

Natural Resource-Mr. Ralston
house by quoting the letters in full. I repeat that they refer to water-powers, not to the Seven Sisters falls, and not to the application of any particular company.
Now, let me refer to the other matter which has been dealt with at great length with regard to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior. He made statements to the house on June 6, 1928. I am afraid hon. members have perhaps not appreciated exactly the order in which those statements were made, or their contents. There has been repeatedly quoted a statement by the hon. minister in reply to a question addressed to him by the hon. leader of the opposition, in which he said:
I may assure my hon. friend that until that difference of opinion is settled I am not going to issue any license for that water-power. 1 think I may assure my hon. friend of that.
But that was not the final statement. Following that, as the records shows, was a long speech by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and then the Minister of the Interior replies to him in these words:
I am going to say very frankly here and now that notwithstanding the fact that at present the government have adopted a line of action with respect to the Seven Sisters falls I am not in any particular hurry to come to any decision about that matter, largely because of the fact that the members of this house have expressed very decided opinions about the matter as federal members. I am not very much disturbed by the statement that there must be immediate action; I have investigated the matter pretty well and I think there is plenty of time to give ample consideration to this matter before it is decided. In order to settle the question, and in order to prevent any delay, I do not see any reason why we should not await the action of the city council of Winnipeg and of the provincial government, which must take the responsibility, before a final decision is made here. I think that should satisfy my hon. friend.
Now, that is the understanding arrived at, that my hon. friend would await the action of the city of Winnipeg and the provincial government, and would consult the federal members from the province. My hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird) understood that, as has already been pointed out by the Minister of the Interior this afternoon. The hon. member for Nelson was quite frank in his statement to the house. He said:
_ It may be against my disposition to oast unjustifiable reflections upon the government, or upon the Minister of the Interior, and I do not go as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) went. The Minister of the Interior did say to us quite plainly, before we left for home last session, that he could not hold up this matter until the Manitoba legislature met: he was very frank about that. But if I did not misunderstand

him. and there is always the possibility that I might have-I can confirm what I am saying by my own diary, and his words in the house seem to confirm it-he said that before anything was done the members for Manitoba would be consulted.
That is what my hon. friend himself understood. And what does the minister do? I ask hon. members to consider this in all fairness, because some caustic criticism has been made of the Minister of the Interior. The minister waits for over three months, instead of a month or a month and a half; he goes to Winnipeg twice and consults members there. True, he did not consult all the members; I understand that, and the minister has been quite frank about it. But he did consult the majority of the members there, and the whole resources question intervenes; it comes up about a month after the statement was made in the house. A very different situation presents itself to him. The government had arrived at an agreement to transfer the whole of the natural resources to the province of Manitoba subject to certain stipulations, and provided the house ratified it and in the meantime they consented to dealing with its natural resources according to the wishes of Manitoba under the powers which the statutes conferred on the executive. Let me right here refer to what has been said by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). That hon. gentleman has talked about the alienation of natural resources otherwise than by parliament, I would ask the house to bear this in mind, that we are discussing a power which has been exercised under the Dominion Water Powers Act for a good many years. The governor in council is authorized under that act bo grant licenses. I quite understand that there is no authorization to transfer them absolutely. And that, it seems to me, is the distinction which is to be made in connection with the argument which is being advanced on the other side of the house. There is a difference between administrative action and legislative action. Administrative action is taken every day. The Minister of Public Works, after a vote is passed here, has to do, let us say, with the construction of a building; if something goes wrong there you do not take away the power of the minister to construct that building and confine that power to parliament. You censure him if censure is justified, and you may have him dismiss someone if there is someone in the department who is not acting properly. But that does not give you any justification to come here and say, "We are going to remove from the minister the administrative power and vest it in the

Natural Resources-Mr. Ralston
legislative body." Under the Dominion Water Powers Act the government has to-day-as I know the province of Nova Scotia and the province of British Columbia have, and as I think the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec also have-the right to grant licenses of water-powers; and these licenses are being granted: every day as an executive act. My hon. friend speaks of a change of policy in connection with paragraph 6 of the agreement, which indicated that this government was going to follow the wishes of Manitoba, and he suggests that this ought to have been made a matter of legislation. But the legislation was on, the statute book. This government had the power, under the Water Powers Act, to do all that was d*>ne in this case, namely, to grant the license to the Winnipeg Electric Company or to Manitoba as the case might be. And that was all that this government did. It did not need further administrative power at all; it had it. It needed legislative power if there was to be an absolute transfer of natural resources. Take the province of Nova Scotia, for instance:	every day the Minister of Mines
grants licenses on mineral areas. That is administrative, and such action the government can take. If, on the other hand, he proposes to transfer the whole of the minerals of the province, that is to say, to transfer the absolute fee simple, in that case legislation is required. And such legislation was provided for in the agreement between Manitoba and this government. We must, I say, carefully distinguish between legislative power and the administrative power, the administrative function vested in the Dominion government and in every local government in Canada, and that power it is now proposed to take away from this federal government by the resolution now before the house. We are losing sight of this distinction, and it would contravene the very spirit of the working out of our constitution if we decided to make this legislative body an administrative body.
My hon. friends have been most severe in their criticism, but they do not charge the minister with being dishonest and I do not think they should assume that a government will exercise the powers vested in i.t dishonestly. But it is suggested that because this transaction has taken place-a transaction which is quite within the powers of the executive- the remedy should be to remove entirely the power which is properly vested in those by whom it should be exercised. That is not a logical suggestion; it is not workable; it is not a practical suggestion. I do not think it is a suggestion which will commend itself to the judgment of the house.
Many times the terms monopolies and corporations and trusts and capitalists have been used in the debate, and it seems to me that it is these terms which have influenced at least some hon. members more than anything else in connection with the transaction. If this lease had been made to the government of Manitoba, that would have been all right; but because the licensee happens to be called a "company", with "limited" added thereto, that makes it all wrong. I submit-and I do not think one needs to make very much of an argument about it-that if the transfer to the licensee is made at the request of a public body, in this case the government of Manitoba, the province of Manitoba, the principle of public ownership is just as much respected as if the transfer had been made to the premier of Manitoba, or the Minister of Public Works or the Attorney General.
I do not think there has yet been read the statement with regard to the proposal of this government to transfer this lease to the province of Manitoba. The statement is contained in a letter of August 18, 1928, to Mr. Bracken. It reads:
Dear Mr. Bracken,
After discussing with my colleagues the applications made for the right to develop the Seven Sisters power site on the Winnipeg river, *we have decided to offer the Manitoba government the right to develop this power site. It is to be understood, however, that the lease will be in accordance with the provisions of the Dominion water-power regulations governing the leasing of power sites.
We will prepare an interim license at once if this meets with the approval of your government.
Yours sincerely,
Charles Stewart,
Minister of the Interior.
The federal government is there proposing to transfer, not to the Winnipeg Electric but to the government of Manitoba itself, this power site. And what is the reply? It is contained in a letter from Premier Bracken dated August 21, 1928, addressed to the Hon. Charles Stewart. It reads:
Dear Mr. Stewart,
I have your letter of the 18th instant, in which you advise that after consultation with your colleagues you had decided to offer the government of Manitoba the right to develop Seven Sisters power site, in accordance with the regulations of the Water Powers branch.
I beg most respectfully to point out that no matter how- willing our government might be to accept this offer, it has no legal authority to do so. Might I also point out that the policy of this government under the circumstances now obtaining, as you know, is not to develop this site itself but to permit it to be developed by the company which now controls in perpetuity nearly one half of the water in this section of the Winnipeg river. _ This policy was arrived at after having obtained opinions

Natural Resources-Mr. Ralston
and recommendations from the Dominion Water Powers branch and advice from expert hydroelectric engineers both in your department and outside.
The minister has mentioned two electrical engineers, Doctor Hogg and Mr. Gaby.


Charles A. Stewart: That might be misunderstood. I merely mentioned Mr. Gaby as an engineer in whom I had complete confidence and who was an associate of Doctor Hogg; but he was not employed on that work.


James Layton Ralston: Then I am corrected as regards Mr. Gaby. The letter proceeds:
In accordance with that policy, the government negotiated a contract with the Winnipeg Electric Company and the North Western Power Company. We were successful in obtaining terms which would make for the complete realization of the plans and policies for which your Water Powers branch has been contending for several years. The contract provides for the abandonment of the Pinawa development and the closing of the channel, and for the single development of the maximum power possibilities of the Winnipeg river at the Seven Sisters site. It also assures the province of an adequate supply of power sufficient to meet the needs of the provincial hydro system and of rural Manitoba for the next thirty years, at a very low price.
By this contract the perpetual right of the company to the Pinawa flow will be extinguished and the acquisition of the Seven Sisters development by the province at the end of thirty years made possible.
We should have preferred undertaking the development ourselves but for the fact that under the circumstances existing it would have been an unsound financial proposition and would have prejudiced the principle of public ownership. The arrangement entered into makes possible immediate development under conditions where rates can be controlled, the interests of the public adequately protected, and the development taken over at the end of thirty years under conditions much more likely to make possible successful operation as a publicly owned enterprise, without our having to expropriate or to pay for the present Pinawa plant or the perpetual rights now held by the company.
These are the reasons why it was not granted to the government of Manitoba direct. But, Mr. Speaker, I contend that the government can be taken prima facie to represent the people of Manitoba. My hon. friend from Vancouver North (Mr. McRae) spoke this afternoon about what had been done in the country to the south, where power developments were kept for the people, as he said. I do not know who better represents the people of a province than the government elected by that province; I believe this provincial government was elected in 1927 and received a vote of confidence in a by-election in 1928. This Manitoba government, by

order in council which I think has been read, definitely requested the government of the Dominion to issue this license to the Winnipeg Electric Company. Let me read just a paragraph:
And whereas the said interim license was prepared by the water powers branch of the Dominion government in accordance with the request of the provincial government;
And whereas before executing said interim license the government of Canada desires to have same approved of by the government of Manitoba;
And whereas it appears expedient for the government of Manitoba to approve of said interim license;
On the recommendation of the honourable the minister, the committee advise-
That said interim license be and it is hereby approved and that the Minister of the Interior be requested to execute the same.
I do not know of any transaction which could be more within the statute than that, and I cannot understand why that transaction should be invoked in an endeavour to support the resolution now before this house proposing to take out of the hands of the government the right to execute licenses under the Dominion Water Powers Act. It has been suggested already what would be the situation in Alberta and Saskatchewan, and I only want to suggest what would be the situation in Nova Scotia, where for years the executive had the right to issue licenses for water-powers and for crown lands and where there never has been a suggestion that the legislature should pass on each individual act in that respect. As I said a moment ago, the only time the legislature would be called upon to act would be in case of the transfer of the fee simple, the title to the natural resources.
Just one further word: It seems to me that we have lost sight of the fact that some days ago this house adopted a resolution moved by the hon. member for Frontenac-Adding-ton (Mr. Edwards) and seconded by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) stating:
That, in the opinion of this house, in the best interests of confederation, and the economic development of western Canada, the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be granted their natural resources-
What we are doing here, and what has been done, is to endeavour to expedite that transfer as far as could be done under the statute as it stood. What has been done is this:	It
has been agreed by this House of Commons that it is now our policy to transfer to the western provinces their natural resources. In July of last year this government, believing this policy would be adopted by the House of Commons, entered into an agreement which it expected would be ratified by this house,

Natural Resources-Mr. Ralston
and I take it that that agreement has been ratified through the adoption of this resolution. In connection with that agreement it was not proposed to wait until actual legislation was passed when the government had already the power in connection with an individual case to grant a license, but to exercise that power according to the wishes of the province for which the federal government from that time on held the property; and so the license was granted to the province of Manitoba pursuant to that arrangement, in the spirit of the resolution which was adopted by this house, in an attempt in good faith to grant to the province of Manitoba those natural resources which everyone agrees should go back to them.
With regard to the contract itself, very little attempt has been made to criticize it in any way, and really one finds it difficult to understand just why we have taken so long in this debate in view of that fact, because after all the merits of the contract itself should have something to do with this question. If it could be shown that the government had made an absolutely wretched contract, one which could not be defended, there might be some ground for taking some action in this house, but hardly a voice has been raised to suggest that the contract has been anything but proper and good for the province of Manitoba. By that contract the Pinarwa development was to be discontinued and 50,000 extra horse-power has been reclaimed and made available to the power users of Manitoba; by the contract 30,000 horse-power will be supplied the province at a rate of between $11 and $13 per horse-power, and under the contract the rates are made subject to the provincial public utilities board, so there is no danger that the people of that province will have to pay too much for power. Let me read section 14 of the contract:
Subject to designation for that purpose by the Governor in Council as required by paragraph (m) of section 12 of the act, the rates to be charged by the licensee for the power developed under this interim license shall be subject to and under the jurisdiction of the Municipal and Public Utility Board of the province of Manitoba, or its successor, and the said board shall have complete jurisdiction from time to time to fix just and reasonable rates to be charged by the said licensee determined in accordance with the provisions of the regulations.
Further than that, the following provision is made for taking over by the government of Manitoba itself:
Subject to the approval at the governor in council after notice of taking over has been given, His Majesty in the right of the province of Manitoba shall have the right to take over the final license at Seven Sisters falls, together
with all rights, powers, privileges, benefits and advantages in connection therewith, and all the works, lands and properties of the licensee at said Seven Sisters falls used by said licensee for the production of electrical energy thereat, in accordance with the conditions set out in section 11 of the said agreement of April 25, 1928.
I will just place before the house one other provision of the agreement which seems to me rather important. As I said a moment ago, this agreement was made with the idea in view that the natural resources were to be returned to the province of Manitoba. That means that the reversion in this license would eventually be transferred to the province of Manitoba as soon as authority was granted by this parliament; in other words the province of Manitoba would become the landlord, the person granting the license, and the body owning the fee simple. Paragraph (i) of section 10 is as follows:
Notwithstanding any provisions of the regulations or of this license there shall upon the return of the natural resources to the province of Manitoba be paid by the licensee to the province of Manitoba for such provincial hydroelectric or other purposes as the lieutenant-governor in council of the province of Manitoba may determine such additional annual rentals per horse-power as the lieutenant-governor in council may determine by any general waterpower regulations.
In other words, when the natural resources are actually handed over to the province of Manitoba and the province becomes the licensor to this company, because of the fact that it will take the place of the federal government, then under this section the province of Manitoba is entitled to impose upon the company such additional rentals as the lieutenant-governor in council of that province may see fit. That means that the company is under the control of the province in connection with the rates to be paid for power. The rates of the company are to be regulated by the public utilities commission of the province, and in addition to that the amount the company is to pay for rentals to be fixed by the lieutenant governor in council. It seems to me that should pretty well protect the public interest; and when we have the added fact that this license was granted on the request of the province of Manitoba itself it seems to me that we have to all intents and purposes public control and public ownership in just as full and free a sense as if the license had been granted to the province of Manitoba itself.
May I just say one thing more, and it is not in connection with the lease which is the subject of this debate. It arises from what was said by the hon. member for Frontenae-
656	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Ralston
Addington, who, in a very whimsical speech, put forth his ideas with regard to the constitutional question as to natural resources. I do not wish to raise a legal discussion in the house at this late hour, but I must say that I cannot, either as- a member of this house or as a professional man, agree with the legal opinion expressed by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington. I hardly think he will find that the western provinces themselves will rely upon the argument he put forward.


Mr. GOTT:: lie did not give it as a legal opinion.


James Layton Ralston: Nearly all the sections of the British North America Act, the Alberta Act and the Manitoba Act were cited, and the hon. member was setting himself up, for the time being at least, as the chief justice of the court on constitutional principles. I do not think the western provinces will associate themselves with the contention he made, which was to this effect: It is true that when we came into confederation we got a certain payment in lieu of lands, but we now find that you had no right constitutionally and technically to withhold our lands; therefore we suggest that we should have the money in lieu of lands and the lands too. That was the argument of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, and I only desire to go on record as stating that I cannot agree with any such contention. The real contention is rather that this matter should be considered on broad and equitable principles and the natural resources handed over to the western provinces on that ground and not in this narrow and to say the least highly technical argument. If I am correctly informed, that is the position which is being taken by the province of Manitoba in connection with the hearing which is going on before the commission.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that neither the resolution nor the amendment to the resolution should be supported'. I believe they lay down a principle which has never before been laid down in connection with the administration of public property. It has always been considered the responsibility of the executive to look after these matters, and the remedy is not that of taking away from the executive the power which is vested in them in the usual course of constitutional practice.


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have been drawn into this argument more by accident than by design.
I chanced to make a remark during the course of the speech of the Minister of Railways (Mr. 
Dunning), and immediately the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) took very decided and I thought rather strenuous objection to my remark. Therefore, I feel called upon to make clear to the house the understanding upon which that remark was made.
Before doing so, let me be careful to say that so far as I am concerned I have not been very much interested in the fight which has been going on between certain members of the house and the Minister of the Interior. I do not understand the exact situation in Manitoba and I do not care to offer any comment on the misunderstandings which have developed in connection with the Seven Sisters falls in that province. It would appear to me that no matter how much the Minister of the Interior may or may not be involved in the matter, the government of Manitoba must accept whatever blame may befall in this connection. But when it comes to the amendment which is before the house there is a principle involved which I most heartily endorse, and I intended to vote for the amendment without any speech at all. However, the objection of the minister, to which I have already referred, makes it necessary for me to offer an explanation.
During the Prime Minister's speech on this question I understood him to say that it was the policy of this government to treat the provinces which had not yet obtained their natural resources as if they had always had them. That was his statement as I understood it, but when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) was speaking he not only made some extravagant claims for the application of the resolution to the natural resources in other provinces, but he made the statement that the Minister of the Interior had been treating all provincial governments alike in respect to their water-powers and natural resources. I took exception to that because I knew for a fact that the government of Alberta had been endeavouring for a considerable time to get control of the Spray lakes power site. The position of the Minister of the Interior in respect to Spray lakes has been this:-if I am mistaken he will correct me-he refuses to give a lease of that power site to the Alberta government unless they will assure this government that they intend to operate that plant as a government undertaking. That is the understanding I have, and if the minister denies it of course I shall have to withdraw the remark I made.


Charles A. Stewart: If that is all the hon. member intends to say, I will do it at once.

Natural Resources-Mr. Irvine


William Irvine: That is only half of what I intend to say. That is right so far?


Charles A. Stewart: All right.


William Irvine: When we come to the province of Manitoba the minister says, "I must give a license to that province because they desire that I should do so even though it is proposed to give the power site to a private company." Is that the same treatment he gave to the province of Alberta?


Charles A. Stewart: Is the hon. member basing his argument on the fact that my refusal to consider the granting of a lease to the province of Alberta was on the ground that they must develop that site themselves?


William Irvine: That is my understanding.


Charles A. Stewart: That objection has been withdrawn for some considerable time. Spray lakes are within the park boundary at the present time, but we propose to exclude them if we can agree with the province. Before the province of Alberta were here on their last visit to discuss natural resources I told them that I had withdrawn the objection to their subletting that site. The situation at the present time is that we must be guaranteed 350 cubic feet of water in the Spray river during the three months of the tourist season, and they must undertake to construct a tunnel to convey the water from the storage basin to their power plant. I may also say that no other application will be considered until the province of Alberta decide that they do- not want to embark on this enterprise.


William Irvine: I am glad to have this explanation from the minister, but he must recognize that the conditions he has submitted to the government of Alberta are impossible ones. I will not go into the details of that because it would require more engineering knowledge than I have at my command at the moment. Until very recently I had not seen any published statement from the minister or from the Alberta government that the conditions under which this power site might be taken over by the government had been altered by the minister. I take his word, but prior to a short time ago it is clear that he had not been treating those two provinces in precisely the same way. Those were the grounds upon which I put the query to the Minister of Railways.
Let me come now to the amendment as it may affect the Spray lakes. Supposing, say ten years from now, there is still a squabble between the provincial government and the 78594-42
Dominion government as to whether a certain number of cubic feet or something else shall be guaranteed or not in the Spray lakes proposition. Some kind of squabble has taken place and lasted, and the result is that the provincial government has not control. I am just afraid that something similar might happen to that power site to what has happened in the case of the Seven Sisters falls in Manitoba. True, the minister says to parliament now that he will guarantee that nothing shall be disposed of without the wish of the province of Alberta. I do not want to insinuate anything, but that was pretty much what I understood him to say last year and it might happen that an excuse could be developed. I am not saying that the minister needs an excuse but if he needs one he has made a very excellent excuse, I must say. It might happen subsequently that conditions would render it possible for the minister to make the same disposition of Spray lakes as has happened in Manitoba. Therefore, in order to prevent that kind of thing, since this power plant is in the national parks, the amendment has great point and force.


Charles A. Stewart: If the province of Alberta desires to develop that site, it will certainly get it; and supposing Alberta said to give it to someone else, I would be in the same position, but the matter would be in the hands of Alberta, not in mine.


William Irvine: At the present time the disposal of this power site is, as I understand the matter, in the hands of the minister, and while I have a considerable amount of respect for the minister, nevertheless I would like to get the assurance of parliament that this site and others in a similar position would not be given away by a minister without at least a discussion in parliament in respect thereto.
I listened a few minutes ago to the hairsplitting legal distinctions of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston). I think I was able to follow his argument, and I think, too, it was only occasionally he came within range of the subject. He says that the disposition of water-power is a matter of administration; that being a matter of administration, it should not be interfered with by any limiting resolution of the character of the one now before the house. He says furthermore that, it being a matter of administration, wThv, we can come back to parliament and have a row with the minister as we are having now, that we can come back to parliament and we can lay all kinds of charges against the minister. That is rather a peculiar kind of argument. Just imagine

65S

Natural Resources-Mr. Irvine
forty years from now when our children are paying a very high price for electric energy, they will turn up Hansard and as a consolation for having to pay that high price, read what the minister says! Can you imagine them saying: Never mind; pay the high price; they had a row with the minister over making that contract? Is that a good argument? That, however, is precisely the meaning of the minister's argument. It is all very well to come here and make insinuations to a minister after he has done the deed, if he has done it, having of course, no reference at all to the present minister. That may be a great satisfaction for an individual on the floor of parliament in 1929 but it is a rather poor argument for those who, forty years from now, will have to pay a high price for power under the control of a private company. That is what we are trying to safeguard.
Then the Minister of National Defence comes to the last extremity of his defence- and only a minister of defence could think of such an argument. He says: "Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the house, surely something ought to be said for the contract; surely if it is a good contract, that ought to excuse the minister and the government of Manitoba and anybody else for anything that might have happened. Suppose somebody steals the watch from the pocket of the minister tonight when he is going home. Of course I do not. say that the word "stealing" is applicable to the Seven Sisters; there is no reference to such a thing. But suppose to-morrow morning the gentleman who steals the watch of the hon. gentleman turns out to be a fine looking fellow and so we bring him into court and we say: "Now, don't be too hard on this gentleman; see how good looking he is, a fine stalwart fellow with a bald head and a mustache; a man *who can hold his head up anywhere." Is that an excuse for his stealing the watch? His good looks has just as much to do with his stealing the watch as the minister's argument has to do with the question before the house or as the contract of the Winnipeg Electric has to do with the charges against the Minister of the Interior. No matter how good the contract was, it went to a private company and those who have been fighting for a principle, who believe in public development, think they have made a claim that the minister in some way or another broke faith with them. As to that I have no remarks to make, but I would say that the minister's ingenious argument did not have much to do with the amendment before the house.
Finally, I think the Prime Minister's argument was a strange one from our own

Prime Minister who has been on the public platform the champion of parliamentary institutions to a more outstanding degree than any other public man I can remember in the history of Canada. I was reading just to-day the bible of the Liberal party. I do not know sir, whether you have seen it, but it is a real bible with the bust of the Prime Minister on the front page and a really biblical quotation from a great Liberal somewhere across the Atlantic. In that bible there are some very definite pronouncements in respect to the power of parliament and there are some very specific references to the orders in council which were passed by the administration prior to the present one. The whole righteous indignation of a great Liberal party which has fought for the liberties of the Canadian people throughout our history was aroused to the very highest pitch in denouncing that kind of thing and promising to the people of Canada that if ever a Liberal party should come into power, all those rights and privileges of the people would be safeguarded by upholding parliamentary institutions and giving parliament the rights which belong to it properly in considering every question which concerns the interests of the people. That is a splendid principle. I am sure the Prime Minister still believes in that principle, but his argument does not fit in. I should say that his speech on this question indicated a profound disbelief in parliamentary institution. I hope he has not had a change of mind; I hope I am misinterpreting him on the question, because I think it would be nothing short of a calamity were the Prime Minister so soon to have lost the ideals which no doubt went a long way towards giving him the confidence of the people which he now enjoys. The parliament of Canada, if this confidence is to bn restored, must deal with matters so important to the welfare of the people as water-power.
Referring again to the administration argument of the Minister of National Defence, when those powers were granted by parliament who then thought of the importance of a river from a power point of view? Who then thought of the importance of electrical energy in the industrial development of the world? Nobody. Since that time electrical "nergy has become the greatest industrial motive force that we have, and consequently we might very properly make an exception in the administration of this particular natural resource. That is all that the amendment proposes. It makes a specific exception of water-powers because of their importance, and insists that before any water-power within the control of this government be given to any private company,

Natural Resources-Mr. Bancroft
parliament shall decide upon the question. That principle I uphold, and I shall therefore be glad to vote for the amendment.


Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: At this late hour I shall not delay the house at any great length, but there are a few remarks that I shou'd like to make in opposition to the resolution and the amendment now before the house. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.
The amendment strikes out the words "natural resources," and substitutes therefor the words "water-powers."
In my judgment both the resolution and the amendment are aimed at the natural resources and water-powers of the three prairie provinces. I shall speak more particularly of the province of Manitoba.
The water-powers of Manitoba are very, very valuable. The Winnipeg and "Nelson rivers are the chief sources of the water-powers of Manitoba. Winnipeg river drains lac Seul and the lake of the Woods into lake Winnipeg. This great river, falling over the rocky slopes on the western end of the Laurentians. creates a great amount of water-power, about three-quarters of a million horse-power.
The Nelson river, which flows from lake Winnipeg into Hudson bay, is four hundred miles long, and falls seven hundred feet in its course. This river is capable of producing somewhere around three and a half million horse-power. The people of Manitoba are very proud of these natural resources. They feel that these water-powers are their own property, that they belong to the people of Manitoba, and that no one else is directly concerned in their development or disposal.
The water-powers of Ontario have been developed or disposed of by the government of that province, representing the people of Ontario. The water-powers of Quebec have been developed or disposed of by the government of that province, representing the people of Quebec. Both these provinces have seen fit to develop and dispose of their water-powers without consulting the federal parliament. They never thought of consulting the Canadian senate. Yet if this resolution and amendment carry to-night, the people of Manitoba cannot develop their water-powers without first coming and consulting the federal members in this house from Ontario and Quebec, from the island of Cape Breton and from the Yukon, and if they succeed in convincing the majority of these members that their plans are good, next they have to run the gauntlet of the Canadian senate before they can proceed to develop what they believe to be their own water-pow'ers. I cannot understand how any member from Manitoba, and this applies to the members from the other prairie provinces as well, can vote for a resolution Which places the people of the province of Manitoba in an inferior position, as compared with the older provinces, in the matter of developing their natural resources. Surely the rights of the people of Manitoba are not less than the rights of the people of the older provinces. If they are, it is high time we knew about it.
Not much more than a week ago the house unanimously passed a resolution moved by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) declaring, in effect, that in the best interests of confederation, and the economic development of -western Canada, the three western provinces should be granted their natural resources free from restrictions. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) supported that resolution, and in view of his action then I cannot understand how he can now move a resolution which places a restriction upon the return of the natural resources to the prairie provinces. The whole house approved of the return to the provinces of those resources. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), the acting leader of the opposition, who moved the amendment now before the house, supported the resolution of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, and yet his amendment would place a very serious restriction upon the development of the natural resources of the western provinces.


Milton Neil Campbell: I should just like to remind the hon. member that the resolution to which he refers has not yet been acted upon by this government.


Leland Payson Bancroft: I did not say anything about the action of this government. I do not know anything about the action of the government on this resolution. I said that the resolution had been accepted unanimously by the house.


Milton Neil Campbell: But until it is acted on by the government, this parliament is responsible for the natural resources.


Lucien Cannon: How can you expect a
government to act within two days?


Leland Payson Bancroft: The resolution moved
by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington declared that the natural resources of the western provinces should be returned to them without any strings attached, but if the resolution and the amendment now before the house passes, the resources of the western provinces
660	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Bancrojt
will not only have strings attached to them but they will be " roped and hog tied " by the other provinces. The amendment now before the house represents the Conservative policy on the question of the natural resources. Provincial rights are to be over-ridden, restrictions and limitations are to be imposed upon the prairie provinces. The development of the natural resources is to be subject to the whims of this house and of the senate.
The policy of this government with respect to the natural resources was clearly stated by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on Thursday night. Speaking on this resolution the right hon. the Prime Minister said:
Water-power to-day is coming to have a significance in industrial development which it has never bad heretofore in the history of this country. The people of western Canada, appreciating that fact and realizing what it means to have possession of their water-powers, are anxious to have those water-powers under their own control to further in the manner they think best the industrial development of their provinces.
A little later on in the same speech he outlines the government's policy:
This government took the position that the right thing to do was to say that we believed the western provinces should be put as nearly as possible in exactly the position they would have been in had they had their resources from the moment they were created as provinces. That is the position we have taken in this new agreement; it admits of no debate or doubt, and having taken that position we intend to stand by it. We intend to see that the western provinces obtain their natural resources on a basis which will put them, so far as may now he possible, in the position they would have been in had they had the administration of their natural resources from the time they were created as provinces, and that means the right for their government and legislatures, not our parliament to decide what is to be done.
There can be no doubt which of these policies will appeal to the western provinces.
During the discussion of this resolution the Minister of the Interior has been severely criticized for his action with regard to the lease of the Seven Sisters falls power site. Some hon. members have said that after the Manitoba federal members had decided by a vote of ten to four against the granting of the lease t-o the Winnipeg Electric Company, the minister went ahead with the deal. I might remind some of my hon. friends from the province that in a case like this it is just as well to be fair. There are seventeen members from Manitoba; ten and four do not make seventeen. The fact is that of the Manitoba members ten were opposed to, and seven were in favour of, the granting of the lease. This afternoon the minister expressed
fMr. Bancroft.]
a preference for the views of those members from the province who were supporting the government. Well, fourteen of them are behind the government. Of these fourteen, seven were in favour of, and seven opposed to, the lease. So I submit he could not get very much guidance from them in view of that difference of opinion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If my hon. friend will permit a question, does he think party considerations should govern the minister's decision in matters of this character, rather than national considerations?


Leland Payson Bancroft: As I understand it, the
Minister of the Interior consulted the Manitoba members, and then ascertained the views of the provincial government. The provincial government is the only body that is directly responsible to the people of Manitoba. Having done so, he acted on the advice of the Manitoba government, It has been stated that the minister did not oonsult the Manitoba members. I was one of those consulted by him in that connection. To my knowledge he consulted eight of the Manitoba members. We agreed, that, owing to the natural resources agreement our responsibility in the matter had ceased. Some four or five others he did not need to consult for he knew they were in favour of the lease.
It has been stated that the Bracken government has got into difficulties over the granting of the lease to the Winnipeg Electric Company, and will probably be defeated. I travelled extensively through Manitoba during last fall, I met many people and I attended a number of farmers' conventions. As a result I am of the opinion-I may be wrong-that a large majority of the people of Manitoba are in favour of the present agreement. I believe it will be ratified by the legislature. In my judgment, if the Bracken government had been defeated during the turmoil of the last two weeks, the government that succeeded it, regardless of party, would have put through the same deal.
The amendment and the resolution in my judgment would put the people of the western provinces in an inferior position as compared with their fellow-citizens in the other provinces in the development of their natural resources, and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against both.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) I had no intention of participating in this debate until quite recently. Some remarks from the other side of the house caused me to change my mind.

Natural Resources-Mr. Campbell
I realize that in so far as this is a domestic question in Manitoba there would be impropriety in discussing it in this house. I intend to discuss the question only from the federal viewpoint. As to whether or not the Bracken government committed sins of omission or sins of commission, that I realize is for the people of Manitoba to decide, and not for me as a member from the province of Saskatchewan. But, sir, those resources are still under the control of the federal government. It is not a question whether the province of Manitoba should control them or not. We are dealing with facts, not theories. I repeat, this government does control those resources, and the very agreement that has been the subject of so much discussion here was made between the federal government and the Winnipeg Electric Company or its subsidiary; the government of Manitoba really did not figure directly in the deal at all. Therefore I submit we are within our rights in discussing this matter from the federal standpoint.
I listened with a good deal of interest the other night to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and I congratulate him on coming out as the chief protagonist in this house of provincial rights. I rather welcome his stand. But I recognize that while appearing in this role, conversely he was attempting to put those of us who are supporting the resolution and the amendment in the position of being opposed to provincial rights. Well, in so far as I am concerned, I am quite ready to be judged by the people of the prairie provinces. I am perfectly confident that the people of the three prairie provinces will not regard us as being opposed to provincial rights.
The Prime Minister argued rather speciously that if this amendment carried and agreements of this character had to be submitted to parliament they would have to pass a Tory senate. Of course that argument might have a good deal of effect in some quarters. I recall when not so many years ago the Prime Minister toured western Canada and made the welkin ring as he denounced that same Tory senate, and his indignation was so intense that he pledged himself on platform after platform at the then coming session of parliament to introduce legislation to reform the senate. But that happened many years ago, and the Prime Minister apparently has forgotten all about his promise. Let me tell him now that should there be any danger of the senate interfering as he suggests, if he will only carry out his promise to reform that branch of parliament he will relieve us of any occasion to worry about what a Tory senate may or may not do.
I do not consider that submitting any agreement to parliament for ratification is an infringement of provincial rights. It is an absolutely absurd suggestion, so absurd that it does not deserve attention. Surely the submission of any proposed alienation of these resources to parliament for ratification cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered an infringement of provincial rights. Suppose the government has decided to grant any of these natural resources to some company or to the provincial authorities, as the case may be, the government is in control of this house by reason of its majority, and therefore there is no reason why it should not submit its proposal to parliament for ratification. It could be done in this way just as well as by order in council.
One particular reason why I am in favour of the resolution and amendment is that their adoption would relieve the public mind of suspicion. There is no use denying the fact that from one end of the country to the other there is deep-rooted suspicion that there was something wrong with the Seven Sisters power site deal, that there was some ulterior motive behind the rather indecent haste both in Winnipeg and in Ottawa to alienate this very valuable water-power. I am not one of those who share these suspicions. I do not believe for a moment that there was anything wrong or dishonest in the transaction, either here at Ottawa or in the province of Manitoba. But I say that there are tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who will always believe that. If this agreement had been submitted to the legislature of Manitoba and submitted to parliament here, then the public mind would have been relieved, and it would have added to the dignity and prestige of parliament, which I must say has been impaired by this deal.
When the Prime Minister referred to the question of interference with provincial rights, I wondered whether he remembered the fact that it was only a few days ago that his associate, the Premier of Saskatchewan, had to break off negotiations with him and go home without those resources. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) made a great deal of the argument that the delay would hinder industrial development in the prairie provinces. I am just as anxious as he is to see a proper balance of industry in the prairies. I believe that the great industrial development which we shall see there in the next quarter of a century will relieve us of some of the troubles we have to bear at the present time and will bring about a better balance and create a home market. I am therefore just
662	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Campbell
anxious as any member in this house to see industrial development in the prairies. At the same time I think it is absurd to suggest that the submission of these agreements to parliament, so long as the federal government controls them, would seriously delay industrial development. Let me say, sir, that the basis of industrial development in the prairies as well as in other parts of Canada is cheap power, and if we give away these water-powers without any proper consideration of the public interest, we are doing the very thing which will delay, and seriously delay, industrial development in the future. If we aire looking into the future, if we are *considering those who will live in the country after we are dead and gone, if we want to see business and industry develop as it should develop, then I say that that is an added reason why we should be careful and should delay for a reasonable time in order to ensure that these resources are not dissipated but are properly handled so that those who are building up industry will not be taxed to such an extent as to render industrial development impossible. But when we consider the delay which the Minister of Railways suggests, I would remind him that the Canadian Pacific Railway must come to parliament for every branch line and every foot of railway it builds -


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Milton Neil Campbell: -except yard increases.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not
right. If the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway company desires to build a line of railway wholly within a province it can go to the provincial legislature.


Milton Neil Campbell: The argument is the
same; they must go to some parliament to have it done. That is my point. Does the minister say that this is going to hold up railway building? The Canadian National Railways must do the same. There are many classes of companies, insurance and financial companies, that must come to this parliament to be incorporated. Not only must they come to parliament to be incorporated but they must come here in order to get the right to increase their stock. Is that such a serious matter? I do not think it is, and that should not justify any indecent haste in disposing of these resources.
Then the minister refers to the conditions in the prairie provinces as compared with Ontario and Quebec. They are not analagous at all. If the prairie provinces controlled these resources, then it would be a matter for those provinces themselves to decide as to 
what is the proper way to alienate them; and with that we have nothing to do. But we are deciding to-day on resources that are still controlled by this parliament-resources in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) used, it seemed to me, some rather lemarkable arguments. He advanced as an argument why we should not pass this resolution the statement that the house had already placed itself on record and accepted unanimously a resolution in which the hope was expressed that the resources would be turned over to the prairie provinces. I believe that you, Mr. Speaker, some time ago referred to one such resolution as simply a pious hope. And that is all it is. Until that resolution is carried out and the resources are absolutely turned over, the question is simply an abstract one and means nothing.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend argue that until they are actually transferred we should pay no regard to the wishes of the provincial governments with respect to their disposition? Is that the argument?


Milton Neil Campbell: I was not dealing with that argument at all; I was dealing with the suggestion that we should not pass this resolution because the house a few days ago had passed another resolution. I say that the other resolution is not in effect at the present time. It is true that the house accepted it, but the very fact that the minister's own former colleague, the Premier of Saskatchewan, and his colleagues, had to break off negotiations and go back home shows how ineffective that other resolution is to-day. Surely we are not going to refuse to consider these matters simply because that resolution- which, as I say, you, Mr. Speaker, would probably describe as a pious hope-was passed by the house a short time ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend does not answer the question. I stated to-night-and the hon. gentleman has criticized me in this regard-that ever since this government came into office there had been an increasing regard for the trusteeship feature of the relationship, and that the provincial governments had been consulted. Does my hon. friend object to that consultation? Does he object to our being guided, even under present circumstances, by the wishes of the provincial authorities?


Milton Neil Campbell: No, I certainly do not object to that at all.

Natural Resource's-Mr. Campbell


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the whole point.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not object to that, but I say that the fact that a resolution has been passed with reference to the transfer of some resources does not constitute any reason why the present resolution should not be adopted; and if it were adopted it would relieve the public mind of a great deal of suspicion, all of which I believe is unjustified.
The minister referred to this very beautiful contract which has been drawn up. And it looks very beautiful until you begin to analyze it. But here you have a company tied up with an agreement under which the government of Manitoba can expropriate that power plant after thirty years. Now the minister knows perfectly well that inside thirty years that company would be so entrenched, it would have such power and influence in Manitoba as to be in a position to upset any government that dared try to exercise the right of expropriation. Through the control of newspapers, by means of contributions to party funds, and so forth, it would be absolutely impossible for any government inside thirty years to interfere with an interest of that kind.
The Minister of Railways said that he, while premier of Saskatchewan, had always been consulted in regard to any major disposal of natural resources. I was wondering whether he was consulted in regard to the disposal of a considerable block of land in 1924. Some 129,517 acres of land in the province of Saskatchewan were turned over to the Hudson's Bay Company in 1924. I hold in my hand a copy of sessional paper 101, a return asked for by one hon. member from Alberta. The question is asked whether the Hudson's Bay Company has obtained any grant of land's in Canada since 1921 and if so in what province, what districts in each province, the date of transfer, and by what authority these lands were transferred; and there is a list showing the disposal of 65,533 acres in Manitoba; 129,517 acres in Saskatchewan; and 153,924 acres in Alberta, making a grand total of 348,974. The authority for the deed of surrender is the Dominion Lands Act, and the order in council was passed on December 19, 1924. It is P.C. No. 2158, and the agreement between the crown and the Hudson's Bay Company was dated December 23, 1924. I believe perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Premier of Saskatchewan refused the offer to continue the present subsidy and receive back the natural resources. A very large part of our natural resources has been alienated already, and I think it would be absurd for the Premier of Saskatchewan to
accept the return of those resources without an accounting for what has been alienated in the past. I believe the Minister of Railways himself, if he occupied that responsible position to-day, would refuse to accept that proposition.


Charles Avery Dunning: A short time ago my
hon. friend asked whether I was consulted in connection with the settlement with the Hudson's Bay Company. I was not consulted, for the obvious reason contained in the report itself. That transfer was due to a settlement as to what were the terms of the original deed of surrender of 1867 from the Hudson s Bay Company to Canada. It was a matter of right and not a matter of giving something away.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think perhaps the
minister will agree that this was a transfer of land to the Hudson's Bay Company in lieu of some release of land they made in the province of Alberta.


Charles Avery Dunning: Can my hon. friend find
that in the documents?


Milton Neil Campbell: I have not the complete file here but certainly that is what I gather. The argument still exists: our resources have been alienated and I say the province is entitled to some accounting for them.


Charles A. Stewart: To settle
the matter, may I say that the Hudson's Bay Company have not made absolutely final selections yet. They have been making selections for years to complete their agreement.


Milton Neil Campbell: There is another matter to which I would like to refer, and that is the disposal of a large block of our school lands in Saskatchewan. This is a phase of the question which has not been dealt with during this debate. I hold in my hand a list of lands which will be offered for sale at Maple Creek, Saskatchewan, on Monday, March 18, 1929, and another list which will be offered for sale at Wolseley, Saskatchewan, on Wednesday, March 20, 1929. I wonder just what is the reason for the haste in disposing of these school lands. It seems to me positively absurd to hold a sale of school lands or any other kind of lands in the prairies in the month of March. There are various reasons j am opposed to this sale. First, I claim that this government has no legal right to offer the lands for sale. I take the view held 'by the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards), although the Minister of National Defence says he does not
664	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Campbell
agree with that view. It seems to me this government agreed with it, and that is the view expressed by Mr. Bram Thompson, a lawyer of Regina, who I think -was the first man to express that point of view. This government really accepted that principle in its dealings with Manitoba, and it seems to me they were influenced by that point of view in this transaction. So I say I am opposed to the sale of these lands because I do not think this government has any legal right to offer them for sale.


Malcolm McLean: Will my hon.
friend permit a question?


Milton Neil Campbell: I have only a few
moments to speak, and I must make the best use of them. There is really an over-production of wheat this year; the best statistical authority on this matter states that there is an over-production of 400,000,000 bushels. A few days ago I read an article in the Financial Times of Montreal, a paper which can hardly be accused of agitating the farmer in connection with his grievances, and in this article the opinion is expressed that the net return to the farmer on the prairie this year for his wheat was only fifty cents a bushel. I say that to a large extent that is due to overproduction, and' just at this time it is absurd to throw all this extra land on the market which will result in an increase in this overproduction.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Did my hon.
friend say the net return or the average return was 50 cents? Did he mean there would be a profit of 50 cents?


Milton Neil Campbell: No, after the fanner
paid for his threshing the net return would be 50 cents a bushel, I would hesitate to quote any farm paper in that regard, but this opinion is expressed by the Financial Times of Montreal, so I say it is absurd to throw a lot more land on the market and further depress prices.


Charles A. Stewart: Without
desiring to interrupt my hon. friend, I may say that it is not usual to sell these lands in March, but this is being done at the request of the provincial government, and the sale itself is taking place under an agreement with the government.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I ask whether the provincial government wanted the sale to take place in March?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, and I will give the reason: They said they wished the sale to take place early so that the people 
purchasing the land might have plenty of time to farm it this season. That is the reason they gave me, although as I say we do not usually sell these lands in March.


Milton Neil Campbell: That is a poor reason,
because this is wild land and it must be broken up before it can be cropped. However, I am glad to hear the explanation; we will have to discuss this matter with the provincial government. It does seem to me, however, that with the tremendous increase in wheat acreage in the United States and the corresponding increase in Canada, due partly to immigration and partly to the combine in the west, this over-production will increase. In 1914 our acreage of wheat was only 10,000,000, while in 1928 it had increased to over 23,000,000 acres. The same laws of economics apply to the agricultural industry that apply to every other industry, although some people do not think so, and if your production is too great you will have a slump in the market. Look at the condition of the pulp and paper industry to-day; we have seen the premiers of Ontario and Quebec going to a great deal of trouble to get these mill owners to reduce their output, and finally they have reached an agreement. They considered it a national calamity because there was an over-production of pulp, but is it not an equally great calamity to have an over-production of wheat? The purchasing power of the farmers will be reduced this year by from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000 because of that overproduction, and at this time we are proposing to put this additional land on the market in order to grow more wheat and increase that surplus.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 5, 1929