1929-02-28

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

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	What was the total cost of the tobacco investigation in western Ontario during the year 1928?
2.	What are the names of those who served on the commission?
3.	How much was paid to each for:	(a)
salaries: (b) per diem; (c) transportation; (d) other allowances ?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	S3,541.27.
2.	E. S. Archibald, chairman; E. P. Tellier; H. B. Archibald; A. J. Desfosses, secretary.
3.	(a) Salaries:-No salaries chargeable to the commission. Regular salaries of E. S. Archibald and A. J. Desfosses continued by the department for their regular duties, which duties they were able to maintain by brief recesses in work of the commission.
(b)	Per diem:-$20 per diem each H. B. Archibald and E. P. Tellier-each $640. In addition thereto, all 3 commissioners received $12 per diem allowance living expenses:- E. S. Archibald, $324; E. P. Tellier, $384; H. B. Archibald, $384.
(c)	Transportation:-E. S. Archibald, $143.90; E. P. Tellier, $180.40; H. B. Archibald, $231.52; A. J. Desfosses, $91.90.
(d) Allowances:-$221.55.	This includes living expenses of secretary, hiring of halls for meetings, advertising meetings, and other incidentals.
Note:-The printing of the commission's report cost an additional $300.


ELECTRIC POWER IMPORTS
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: _ 1. What quantity of electric power was imported to Canada in the year 1928, at each of the following points: Coatieook, St. Armand, St. Johns, Emerson, Gretna, North Portal, Lethbridge, Niagara Falls, and Sarnia?
2.	Were such importations under provisions of a license or licenses from the United States or any state of the union?


Mr. EULER:: 1. Prior to April 1st, 1928, no record. Statement showing the imports from the United States of electrical energy entered for

Montreal Terminal Facilities
consumption in specified provinces of Canada during the period from April 1st, to December 31st, 1928:
Province	K.W.H.
Quebec	 1,154,228
Ontario	 1,015,340
Manitoba	 63,386
Saskatchewan	 12,096
Alberta	 22,912
2. No information.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-TELEGRAPH LINES
Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	Have the Canadian National Railways
acquired the Western Union telegraph lines in the maritime provinces?	.
2.	If so, what is the purchase price?
3.	If not, at what stage do the negotiations stand ?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Yes; but actual transfer to the Canadian National Railway Company will not be effective for a few months, to give the Western Union time to provide housing facilities for the operation of their cable equipment and staff before they can release property.
2.	$1,103,295.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	What customs offices have been closed
within the last year in each of the provinces of Canada?	.	.
2.	What customs offices remain in each of the provinces?


THE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Sir EUGENE FISET (Rimouski):: May I
be permitted to ask the Minister of Finance when we may expect the budget.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: To-morrow.


MONTREAL RAILWAY TERMINAL FACILITIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. G. BELL (St. Antoine):: In view
of the Palmer report regarding the terminals at Montreal, may I ask the Minister of Railways what action is contemplated by the government during the present session? What is the intention of the government as to acting on that report?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	The report was
secured by the government in order to render service to all the various interests concerned in the solution of that problem. Any action taken in this parliament can be action only with respect to the Canadian National Railways. It is not .contemplated by the government to force upon the city of Montreal or upon the various interests affected the adoption of any particular general plan. The effort of the government was merely to secure for the interests affected-the people of Montreal, the city of Montreal, the harbour board, the tramways, the two great railway corporations- expert information bearing upon their problem. That information is now in their hands. The president of the Canadian National Railways has indicated that so far as the Canadian National are concerned they desire to move in the matter of Canadian National terminal construction or reconstruction in Montreal; but I gather from him that any suggestions which the Canadian National make to-day or this session will not have the effect of rendering impossible the evolution later of a larger scheme. I take it that the proposals of the Canadian National, if adopted at this session, would tend to fit in with any future ultimate development which might be decided upon by agreement among the various interests affected.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Is it the intention of the government, then, to take some action regarding Canadian National facilities this session?


Mr. DUNNING:: We are awaiting the
representations of the Canadian National in that regard; the matter has not yet been considered from that point of view.


BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: May I ask the government when it is anticipated that the vacancy in the wardenship of the British Columbia penitentiary will be filled? It has now been vacant for a year. The same question might be asked in reference to the deputy's position. There has been a good deal of comment owing to the fact that the present incumbent, the acting warden, is residing at a hotel in Vancouver instead of at the penitentiary.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As my hon. friend will

Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps
observe, I am unable to answer the question in the absence of the Minister of Justice. I assure him that if he is an applicant his application will receive every consideration.


William Garland McQuarrie: I can inform the Prime Minister that I am not an applicant.


JACK MINER'S BIRD SANCTUARY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: Is it the intention of the government to make a grant to Jack Miner's bird sanctuary?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The estimates are down and they indicate such grants as the government is asking for at the moment. The particular subject my hon. friend has mentioned is one we will have to consider, and I shall be glad to bring it to the attention of the proper authorities.
CAMP BORDEN On the orders of the day:


Mr. T. W. KAISER (Ontario):: May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he has come to any decision with regard to the suggested removal of Camp Borden from its present location?


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: The answer is in the negative.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to introduce an act this session to amend the Northwest Territories Act with regard to trial by jury.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is another question
I will have to refer to the Minister of Justice, and I will ask him to give my hon. friend a reply.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN On the orders of the day:


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: On February 13, a motion in my name for production of papers was passed by this house, but as yet these papers have not been laid on the table. May I impress upon the government the necessity of securing these papers at the earliest possible date?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 27, 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.
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I must deviate somewhat from the line of discussion which I followed yesterday. During yesterday's sitting the Minister of the Interior laid on the table rather voluminous correspondence in connection with the Seven Sisters site in Manitoba, and-


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I correct my hon. friend? I sent the correspondence to the Secretary of State, who tabled it together with other documents.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister is quite right,
but the correspondence related principally to the Department of the Interior, and I am afraid I must read part of it in order that members of the house may have some idea as to what took place before the site was handed over to the Northwestern Power Company, a subsidiary of the Winnipeg Electric Company.
The correspondence to which I am now referring is found at page 16. First I intend to read the last part of a letter from the Minister of the Interior to the Premier of Manitoba under date of February 16, 1927, approximately two years ago. The letter is as follows:
In view of what has been outlined in the foregoing, and particularly of the fact that I understand that the company is now giving serious consideration to the desirability of abandoning the Pinawa plant (which policy we have advocated for many years, although only recently with much hope of achievement). I would inquire of you as to whether you do not consider that the present time is opportune for the province and the company to endeavour to reach some mutually satisfactory understanding covering the development of the combined Pinawa-Seven Sisters reaches which will serve the two-fold end of adding a substantial block of power to the developable resources of Manitoba, and at the same time of providing the province with a substantial block of power for its present and future needs. There are many alternative ways in which this arrangement could be effected and the above ends achieved.
I would appreciate receiving an expression of your views.
This letter was in reply to the request of the Premier of Manitoba that his government be given the lease of the Seven Sisters site.

Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps
Now I want to go a little further in the correspondence and refer to a letter written under date of June 7, 1927, from the legal department of the Winnipeg Electric Company to Mr. J. T. Johnston, director of water-powers, in Ottawa. The letter is as follows: 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.
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.
Now I will refer to something which does not appear in this correspondence and which, of course, could not appear in it. About this time the Nesbitt-Thomson interests acquired four foreign-language newspapers in the city of Winnipeg, I am told, for the express purpose of educating the Polish and Ukrainian citizens of Winnipeg and the German citizens of Manitoba to the idea of private development of power resources in that province. I suppose most members of the house will know that these papers have been put up for sale, now that the purpose for which they were bought has been achieved. This fact came out during the hearing of a court case in the province of Manitoba during the last session of parliament.
Going a little further into this correspondence I find a letter dated October 28, 1927, addressed to Mr. Johnston and signed by the counsel of the Winnipeg Electric Company, who is now the president of that company. The letter is as follows:
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-power purposes.
I presume that "would" should be "should."
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 waterpower purposes.
I might say that the department did take it up and went considerably beyond what is contained in this communication.
Now I come to a rather more significant point. I have just read some communications which show how willing the department was to acquiesce with the requests of the Winnipeg Electric Company, and on February 6, 1928, after questions had been asked on the floor of this house and the whole matter was to be aired here, the following telegram was sent by the Minister of the Interior to Hon. John Bracken, Premier of Manitoba:
Your wire February second re Seven Sisters. No truth in report that Winnipeg Electric Railway Company is urging federal government for lease to develop Seven Sisters falls. Company's application was dated June seventh, 1927, as to which your government has knowledge. Company has not submitted any further request for action in respect to its application. Mr. Johnston expects to reach Winnipeg Monday morning in accordance with your request.
Here we have a telegram from the Minister of the Interior to the Premier of Manitoba stating that there had been no such request from the Winnipeg Electric Company when I am sure that if I had time to peruse the 750 pages of this return tabled yesterday I would find it full of correspondence similar to that I have read.
Now I go a little further. I think hon. members will remember that on June 6 last the leader of the opposition raised the question of the disposition of this power site. The matter was brought up at about ten o'clock in the evening and the minister then gave the assurance to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that no action would be taken by him or by the government until he had consulted with the members from the province of Manitoba. He also said that if the differences had not been composed there would be no leave issued for this development. In the following correspondence which was tabled yesterday I find this communication dated at Ottawa, June 7, 1928: Dear Mr. Bracken,
I have your letter of the 31st ultimo re the Seven Sisters falls lease, together with the memorandum of statements made in your legislature about the matter.
As the matter is one that has created a great deal of interest in Manitoba and_ last night, was made the matter of comment in the house by the hon. Mr. Bennett and, in view of the fact that delay of a month or so will not injure the prospects of this development, I think it wise on my paTt to delay the issuing of the license for that time.
However, I note you have not changed your position from that taken in your former letter.


Mr. MANION:: What was the date of
that letter?

Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps


Abraham Albert Heaps: June 7. Within twentyfour hours of the minister giving his pledge to the house he writes this letter to the Premier of Manitoba, as much as to say: Do not take any notice of the pledge I gave in the House of Commons; we have something in common between us and we are going to slip it over. 1 think the house deserves a little better consideration than that. I do not know whether the Prime Minister was acquainted with this correspondence, but he was good enough to read into the records of the house considerable of the correspondence in connection with the return of the natural resources. I would be pleased to have the Prime Minister read into the records of this house the correspondence from which I have just read myself.


Charles A. Stewart: If the hon. gentleman is inferring that there was a breach of faith on my part, I want to say to the house that I tried to indicate in my speech the action I had taken to reconcile the difference of opinion which was evident among the members at that time. As I pointed out, the lease was not issued until the end of September. There was a great deal of correspondence passing between the parties; considerable pressure was brought to bear upon me throughout the whole proceedings, and I feel that I had satisfied, as far as it was humanly possible, the objections that were raised to the granting of this lease.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have no comment to make on what the Minister of the Interior has just said. I think the letter I have just read speaks for itself.
This action of the government has created a good deal of feeling in Winnipeg and Manitoba, and rightly so, because we have had a very hard struggle to maintain our public utilities in the * city of Winnipeg., These utilities represent a large investment and are the result of a long struggle on the part of the people of Winnipeg, and anything that is done by any government institution, either by legislative or by administrative act, is bound to create a good deal of feeling in that city.
This transaction has created a feeling of distrust in the province of Manitoba. I do not know whether or not that feeling is well founded, but I would like to read a letter written by the manager of the city Hydro to the chairman of the Ontario Hydro Commission, Mr. Magrath. This letter was dated February 8, 1928, and I will only read a brief extract from it. I think the Minister of the Interior knows who Mr. Glasco is, and I do not suppose he would impute any wrong motives to him. At the time this letter was

written I do not suppose there was any thought that this correspondence would be made public, but as this whole matter has received considerable publicity I think I can quote one or two brief sentences. This is what Mr. Glasco says:
The water-powers branch's engineers and their minister too, I believe, seem partial in every way to the private power interests in this dispute that has arisen, and I am hoping that Mr. Johnson will not be able to impress his views too strongly o,n Dr. Hogg during his sojourn in Winnipeg.
The "Mr. Johnson" mentioned in the letter is Mr. J. T. Johnston, t'he head of the water-powers branch of the Department of the Interior. On February 20 I received certain replies from the minister (Mr. Stewart) in reference to a series of questions which I had placed on the order paper. My questions were as follows:
1.	Who requested Mr. T. W. Johnston, head of the water powers branch of the Dominion government to go to Winnipeg in connection with the disposition of the Seven Sisters falls site?
2.	What instructions were given to him in the matter?
T Gn whose authority did he collaborate with Dr. Hogg?
4.	What authority did Mr. Johnston have to submit a series of questions to Dr. Hogg as to whether the Seven Sisters falls should be developed under public or private ownership?
I received the following reply from the Minister of the Interior:
1 to 4 inclusive. At the request of Premier Bracken, Mr. J. T. Johnston, Director of Water Power and Reclamation, Department of Interior, visited Winnipeg to place at the disposal ot the provincial government all physical and technical data required for the consideration ot the Seven Sisters f3.11s matter under review.
I would ask the house to pay particular attention to the latter part of this reply.
Mr. Johnston did not collaborate with Dr. Hogg other than to supply data as above mentioned, nor did he submit any questions to Dr Hogg as to whether the Seven Sisters falls should be developed under public or private ownership.
I would like to quote from the Winnipeg Tribune of Friday, February 15, 1929, with reference to the eyidence given under oath by Mr. Clubb, who was then Minister of Public Works. In this article Mr. Clubb described the first meeting with Doctor Hogg, expert of the Ontario Hydro who was with the government. Premier Bracken, J. T. Johnston of the water powers branch, Ottawa, and C. H. Attwood of the water powers branch at Winnipeg had been present. The meeting had lasted two hours and he had not conferred again with Doctor Hogg. A list of questions had subsequently been drawn up between

Natural Resources-Mr. Heaps
Doctor Hogg and Mr. Johnston for Doctor Hogg to answer, said Mr. Clubb. I would like to know who is telling the truth about this matter, the head of the water powers branch of the Dominion government, or the hon. minister?
Unfortunately I have only the ordinary allotted time in which to discuss this extremely complicated question, and my first opportunity to peruse the correspondence brought down was this morning. However, I would appeal to my Liberal friends on the other side of the house who believe in the principles which elected them to office in the year 1921. During that year this country was flooded with literature, with pamphlets and with documents pleading with the electors of Canada to turn out the Conservative party. I discovered a little book in the library which contains a series of Liberal pamphlets which were broadcast throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion of Canada.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Broadcast by whom?


Abraham Albert Heaps: By the Liberal party. This is what appears on the very first page:
The Liberal Party led by Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King stands for
Government of the People-
Not-by Autocrats
Government by the People-
Not-by Big Interests
Government for the People-
Not-for a Favoured Few.
On page 10 of this book the following appears:
Restoration of the control of the executive by parliament, and of parliament, by the people through a discontinuance of government by order in council and a just franchise and its exercise under free conditions.
If that was the policy of the Liberal party in the year 1921 I would like to know why they have departed from that policy to-day. If government by order in council was no good in 1921, I want to assure my hon. friends on the Liberal side of the house that it certainly is no good in 1929. Conditions between then and now have not altered so much as to make it necessary for people to alter their principles. When this matter was raised by me through a question across the floor of the bouse a couple of weeks ago on the subject of the development of the St. Lawrence waterways, we were told that big questions could not be settled by the ordinary members of parliament; that the ordinary member of parliament had not the understanding, the knowledge and the technical wisdom that the members of the cabinet had. That was the inference anyone would draw, because what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has told the members is that these technical questions should first of all be settled by the cabinet, and that when the deed was signed, the house could have an opportunity of reviewing the matter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I correct my hon. friend? I said that even the cabinet had not the technical knowledge; that the cabinet had to depend upon the advice of expert engineers.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then how does the cabinet decide these questions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the advice of expert engineers who have the knowledge.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the house not do the same?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I presume so. Mr. HEAPS: Then the only difference between the Prime Minister and myself is: why does the house not do it? He says that the house should not do it, and I say that the house should. One of the fundamental Liberal principles is the supremecy of parliament, not the supremacy of the cabinet. In spite of all that has been said, in spite of the good qualities possessed by many members of the cabinet, I believe there could be convened from the 230 or so members who are not in the cabinet, just as good a body of men who would understand the technical advice submitted to them as there is in the cabinet itself.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, when I first read the resolution moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I realized, as has been pretty well established in the discussion that has taken place since, that its terms are altogether too wide. 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 hon. member himself recognized that the terms of the resolution are altogether too wide because, in his own speech as reported on page 441 of the Hansard of February 25, he said:
Someone may raise the practical objection that my resolution is too broad.
Further on, as reported on the same page, he said:
I might as well be frank and say what induced me to bring forward this resolution-it was the power situation.

natural Resources-Mr. Glen
* Having widened the terms of his resolution to include, as has already been stated, so many of the functions of the administration of the departments, he will, I am sure, after the speeches of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), recognize that it will be impossible to support his resolution in its present terms. In this matter I realize fully what was intended by the hon, member in introducing his resolution. I have a good deal of sympathy with the spirit which evidently actuates the resolution, namely, that there should be no domination of the power interests in the Dominion of Canada. I, like him, have had to fight against these in the house, not in the form of the financial interests; but I remember the old feudal system of Scotland where we had just as great an iniquity as we have in the financial situation as it exists in Canada to-day. There a head was raised which it was easy to knock. Unfortunately the financial interests of Canada constitute a hydra-headed monster so that no sooner do you hit one head than another rises, and in many cases you do not know where these financial interests have their head at all.
Having said that, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went on to complain about the domination of the power interests and he sought to illustrate that by a particular instance. I think he will agree with me that when he was at school and took his lessons in logic he learned that when you introduce a universal premise with a particular minor premise, you cannot draw a universal conclusion. He has done this, in that the domination of these interests is the major premise, while the particular premise is the innipeg power site; and therefore draws the general conclusion that all should be abolished. I cannot agree with that.
I think, however, something will have to be said from the point of view of the members for Manitoba who took part in all the negotiations leading up to the issuance of the lease. In this I am speaking not for any group but for myself, giving my own individual opinion. May I say at the outset that I have not changed my opinion from that which I held at the inception of our agitation regarding the issuance of the lease. Some history will have to be given as to the attitude of the Manitoba members. The opposition was absolutely clear and I think it can be stated in very few words. I do not propose for one moment to enter into the correspondence of which the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) who has just taken his seat, has spoken, because I have not been able to see it. I do not think it is my particular 
function to defend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) in any of his negotiations. I will speak afterwards of the meetings that we had with the Minister of the Interior, but in the present instance I wish to say that despite the implication of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) yesterday that the members from Manitoba had no right to enter into this controversy because the province had all the sovereign right and were in absolute control of their resources, nevertheless the fact must be recognized that the Department of the Interior had, if not absolute jurisdiction over those resources, at all events the disposal of them within their right. That being an acknowledged fact, we as federal members from Manitoba had to take the position that we should, if possible, give our advice to the Minister of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior, very properly I think, asked the advice of the members from Manitoba. Before that was done a round robin was signed by sixteen of the seventeen members from Manitoba and addressed to the Minister of the Interior. It read:
We the undersigned members of parliament from the province of Manitoba respectfully request that the power site in the Winnipeg river known as Seven Sisters falls be retained for the use of the government of the province of Manitoba in their own provincial hydroelectric system.
After that date it is not possible to give in chronological order all the meetings that took place. We had many meetings among ourselves as members and I can assure the house that some of them were very hectic. There were some differences between the members who sit in the southeast corner of the house as well as among those who sit in line with me. Some took one position, some another, and their opinions were expressed very strongly at those meetings. At all events, suffice it to say that after a vote had been taken among the different members from Manitoba, a letter was addressed to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) on May 15, 1928, as follows:
Re: Seven Sisters Falls Dear Sir,-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 power site or the development of it by the province of Manitoba.
2.	That the said interval would afford the city of Winnipeg an opportunity to take a

Natural Resources-Mr. Glen
referendum vote on the Question as to whether the said city desires to develop the power at said site in connection with their present hydroelectric system.	.	.3.	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.	.	,,	.4.	That in the event of the province of Manitoba deciding not to develop the said site and the city of Winnipeg having reached a decision to develop same, that the city be given the opportunity of developing said power on such terms as may be satisfactory to the government of the province of Manitoba.	.5.	That in the event of neither the province of Manitoba nor the city of Winnipeg wishing to develop said site that the present applicants The Winnipeg Electric Railway Company be given priority to any other private corporation to develop same subject to the usual restrictions and conditions imposed by your department and on such additional terms as may be asked for by the province of Manitoba in reference to any proposed lease or agreement to be entered into by the said company with the Dominion of Canada or the province of Manitoba.


Mr. GEARY:: What was the date of that?


James Allison Glen: The 15th of May, 1928.


Mr. SPENCER:: Who was the writer of
that letter?


James Allison Glen: The letter expressed the
majority opinion of the Manitoba members, and was signed by myself as chairman of that meeting.
In the whole controversy which ensued, whatever may have been in the minds of others, the one dominant feature in my mind was that if the issuance of this lease was a departure from the principle of public ownership, which I with other members had been on record as supporting, then so far as we federal members were concerned, we were determined to dio all in our power to delay the issuance of that lease until the representatives of the people of Manitoba had had an opportunity of declaring themselves on the matter in the legislative assembly.
It will be noted that the letter I have just read demands that the province of Manitoba, in the first instance, shall take over the site. The hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) spoke the other evening of having quarrelled with many of his friends. I can tell him that he is not alone in that respect. We found after this letter had been signed by the majority of the Manitoba members in the federal house that we were bombarded right and left, and that a great many of our political friends were taking opposite views from us. The Manitoba Free Press lost no opportunity to berate us, and I felt that in self-defence it was necessary that I should state and restate in the province of Manitoba the position
we took at that time. I therefore wrote a letter to the Manitoba Free Press, and also to the Winnipeg Tribune, which I propose to put on record. It is dated June 25, 1928, and read's as follows:
Dear Sir,

I would like to re-state the position of the federal members for Manitoba in view of the issues which are being injected into the controversy, and the motives which are being ascribed to them.
When the proposed agreement with the Winnipeg Electric Railway Company was before the Minister of the Interior he naturally, and as I think, correctly asked for the views of the federal members. These power sites are at present under the control and jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. The acceptance or rejection of this agreement could at any time be the subject of discussion in the House of Commons, and in that discussion I presume even the critics, newspaper and otherwise, would not challenge the right of the representatives of Manitoba to take part. How-ever the fact is that the opinion of the Manitoba members was invited, and may I say that I am convinced no member approached this question either in the role of expert, or as a politician, giving to the latter term the sinister meaning which is intended to be conveyed by editorial writers. It was a matter of the deepest concern to every individual member. I am in a position to state, that during all the discussions which took place among the members, the political significance of any decision which might be arrived at, was not even mentioned. The whole matter resolved itself into two fundamentals which I think the members were competent to discuss, these being (first) whether the proposed agreement was in violation of the principle of public control of national resources, and (second) whether the people of Manitoba were fully seized of the proposed alienation and had had opportunity of so expressing.
As to the first there can be no doubt that only extraordinary and incontestable circumstances would warrant the transfer of the Seven Sisters power site to a private company. At the time there was nothing to indicate that the transfer of this site had ever been considered as a concrete proposal by the legislature of Manitoba, and I think it is a fair statement to make that the publication of extracts of speeches of individual members demonstrate the fact that at the time these utterances were made there was no definite proposal for the acquisition of this site. Subsequently an effort has been made to show that a shortage of power will take place by 1929, according to Mr. Anderson, K.C., although Mr. McLimont puts it at 1931, and apparently there is no doubt in the minds of any of the promoters for the electric company that there will be no difficulty in disposing of the power to the consuming public. The question naturally arises in one's mind that if private capital which is usually operated on conservative and safe bases, are willing to make this large investment assured of adequate returns then certainly the province of Manitoba should hesitate, and carefully consider the granting of a franchise which despite the safeguarding clauses as to expropriation may mean the alienation of a national resource. I, with other members, have taken the position that this imperative demand for the immediate disposal of this power site is not justified. There are factors in this matter which are

Natural Resources-Mr. Glen
being, if not ignored, at least evaded. I do not propose to refer to these at this time. So far as the majority of the federal members are concerned it is not necessary in view of their decision, but it is certainly a warrantable assumption that the transfer of the Seven Sisters site means the electric company will have the dominant control of the Winnipeg river and the development of other power sites will occur only and if the company at their sweet will decide to do so.
This brings me to the second fundamental I have referred to, whether the citizens of the province are seized of the facts and have expressed themselves. To state that is to answer it. It can be moderately stated that until the proposed agreement was submitted for completion the people generally had no idea of its purport. Since then there has been a newspaper controversy which while helpful does not reflect general public opinion. I have met Winnipeg citizens who might have been expected to take sides on behalf of the electric company protesting against the feverish activity to dispose of the power site. It is somewhat remarkable that this immediate need should develop in so short a time, and should take the form of a stampede. Those of us who sought and requested delay in order that sane and reasonable consideration should be given to a matter so important have not in my opinion exceeded our duty as members, apart altogether from our rights as individual citizens. We did not take a position antagonistic to the electric company. We did 'not assume a knowledge of the whole question, although some of us could, I think, without unduly straining our intelligence, form and express a decision on the subject matter quite as competently as those who assume the position of promoters. All we did was to counsel delay and this was done in the form of a resolution whose terms seem to have been forgotten, and which were as follows:
Then follows the letter which I have already read, and with which I shall not trouble the house again. To continue:
There is danger in the confusion of issues which have been created. There is no hostility on the part of the federal members to the proposed agreement with the electric company. As a matter of fact there is a specific declaration that m the event of the province or the city of Winnipeg refusing to develop the power site this company be given priority to any other company. There is no hostility to the provincial government. If no mandate is given by the people to the government to undertake the proposition they will suffer no loss of prestige, in fact the contrary. If the city of Winnipeg decide not to proceed to develop then the whole proposition must come back to the electric company and the consideration then of the terms of the agreement. Whatever the ultimate result we have taken the position that this whole matter should not be disposed of until some opportunity is given to the people to express their opinion. That is what we recommended. Was it an unreasonable request? The people must judge.
For these reasons I was convinced then, as I am now, that our proposal that the government of Manitoba submit the agreement to the legislature for ratification was the proper procedure.

Now I come to what has been injected into this controversy, namely, the conference which took place between the representatives of the Dominion and the province of Manitoba, an announcement regarding which was made on July 11, 1928. There will be some difference of opinion among the members from Manitoba as to the effect of clause six of that announcement. It reads:
Pending this transfer-that is, the transfer to the province of the unalienated natural resources within its boundaries-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.
During the session of 1928 the Prime Minister announced that an opportunity would be given for a discussion with the province of Manitoba in regard to its natural resources. That assurance was prompted probably by members on this side of the house, and in particular by some of ourselves representing Manitoba constituencies. There was a resolution on the order paper dealing with the return of the natural resources of Alberta, which I will frankly say gave us some concern as to how we were to vote. It became a question whether the natural resources were to be dealt with according to the wishes and the direction of the provinces. Ultimately that resolution was withdrawn, but the Prime Minister on the floor of the house gave an undertaking that the natural resources question with the province of Manitoba would be settled at an early date, and we were satisfied.
A conference did take place for the purpose of dealing with the question of the return of the natural resources to the province of Manitoba. In my judgment that altered the position so far as J personally was concerned; and as I said at the beginning I am speaking wholly for myself. Before I became a member of this house I with many other citizens had been urging the provincial government to request the Dominion government to return the natural resources. Every government that I know of, whether Liberal, Conservative or Progressive, has from time to time demanded the return of the natural resources to the province. When the time came for a discussion between the Dominion and the province it was set forth in the announcement to which I have referred that these resources would be returned to Manitoba, and that pending their transfer the provincial government would have control and that the Dominion government would make whatever disposition of the resources the provincial authorities might desire. I think, as the Prime Minister stated yesterday, that that was an entirely reasonable thing for the province of Manitoba to ask, and I am still of that opinion.

Natural Resources-Mr. Glen
As I say, I took that position then, and I stated it to the Minister of the Interior when I saw him in Winnipeg in August last. The only modification in my view was this, that I thought the responsibility for the disposal of that power site must rest with the province of Manitoba. As a federal member, having expressed that view publicly, I was determined that the province of Manitoba should take absolute control of the disposition of its natural resources, and that it was the right and duty of the provincial government so to do.
I understand that for the meeting with the Minister of the Interior in Winnipeg in August last a number of the Manitoba members were not available, and consequently were not present. I happened to be at that meeting, and I may say it was not held in a back room. Seven of the federal members from Manitoba met the Minister of the Interior. We expressed the opinion then, as I think we will express it now, that there was no change in our attitude with regard to delay, that that attitude had not been altered in the slightest degree; but we did state what I have already stated, that in view of the anouncement made by the federal government that the natural resources would be held at the disposal of the provincial government, we must see to it that they definitely and unequivocally assumed full responsibility in the matter. If my memory serves me right, I suggested to the Minister of the Interior that no report of an3r interview with Premier Bracken was sufficient, that there ought to be an authoritative statement from the Manitoba government by way of order in council that they wished the Dominion government to issue a lease of the water-power site.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Interior did consult with seven of the members from the province of Manitoba, and he advised us of the demand that had been made by Premier Bracken and what the federal government proposed to do. That did not alter my personal opinion that I as a private citizen of the province of Manitoba will have a right to express at any time in the future, but I did take the position, as I do now, that the provincial authorities having accepted the offer of the Dominion government for the return of the natural resources -and that agreement is likely to be ratified by this parliament-they were responsible solely for the disposition of any of those resources.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May I interrupt
the hon. gentleman-supposing the present government is defeated on the issue, what would be the situation?


James Allison Glen: In the province of Manitoba?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


James Allison Glen: You are anticipating. I do
not expect they will be defeated; I sincerely hope not.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do you approve of their
action in this matter?


James Allison Glen: I have already stated my
viewpoint as frankly and as clearly as I know how. I should like to say further that I had an opportunity of discussing this matter with Premier Bracken right here in Ottawa. I know there have been suspicions aroused with regard to his integrity, and it has been suggested that the machinations of some people influenced him in the action he took. I have known Premier Bracken personally for many years, I know his character, and the whole province knows his splendid reputation. In the discussion which I had with him-a perfectly frank discussion by the way-he took a certain line with which I did not agree; but I will say this, no man, unless he had1 indisputable evidence, would ever convince me that Premier Bracken was improperly influenced by any power in the province of Manitoba or the Dominion of Canada.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I ask if Premier
Bracken issued any lease at all? Was not the lease issued by this government?


James Allison Glen: There is no use quibbling about what we already know. After my discussion with Premier Bracken I am of the firm conviction that he acted solely in the interests of Manitoba. I am willing to give him that credit, although I differ from him-in answer to your question-as to the method he adopted. The position of the members in Manitoba was clear and unequivocal. I believe that the province of Manitoba through Sts legislature 'is alone rtespondible 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.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: The hon. member for Marquette ('Mr. Glen) will not be true to his principles of public ownership or true to the interests of the province of Manitoba or of liberalism so far as its natural resources are concerned, if he does not now vote to defend those principles. Manitoba and the two sister provinces in the



Natural Resources-Mr. Church
years to come will be very greatly interested in mineral development and in water-power, even though agriculture at the present time may be the basic industry there. What has kept New Ontario back for so long has been the lack of cheap light and power. Away back in 1905 Sir Adam Beck wanted to electrify the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, but was defeated in bis efforts. New Ontario was thus set back twenty or twenty-five years because the water-powers in that great country were controlled by private interests. The Ottawa Journal says of Mr. King's policy:
Government by Sidestepping
As an adroit side-stepper of issues calling for decisiveness and responsibility, the palm must go to our Prime Minister, Mr. Mackenzie King. His handling of the St. Lawrence waterway question illustrates his skill. Last year Mr. King said that nothing could be done about this problem until the Supreme Court decided the respective jurisdictions of the Dominion and the provinces in regard to water-power. In the circumstances, the obvious _ course was to get the provinces and the Dominion to agree upon a set of questions to be answered by the court. That, indeed, was what the provinces wanted. They suggested that there should be a preliminary meeting with the court, and that at this meeting an effort be made to arrive at questions which should be drafted for consideration.
That, however, didn't suit Mr. King. What did suit him was that the Justice Department should draw up a set of vague questions baffling to the proverbial Philadelphia lawyer. The result is well known. The Supreme Court held a hearing; there were long arguments by high-priced counsel; much expense-and nothing else. The court, while answering certain things that didn't much matter, left other things that did matter almost as they were. The questions, it said, were too vague.
That, however, didn't worry Mr. King. It had gained him almost a year of delay, and, what was more to his liking, it gave chance for further delay. And Mr. King took the chance. He took it in the form of deciding that there should now be a-conference. Nothing, -when you want to drag something, like a conference.
The conference that the provinces wanted last year, is to be held this year. It is to be held after the session, between Ontario and Quebec on the one hand, the Dominion government on the other. The other provinces, if they evince sufficient interest, may be let in. The conference, of course, is to be over the same old question of the ownership of power.
So Mr. King gets at least another year when he doesn't have to worry over what Canada should do about the St. Lawrence Deep Waterway. He has written a nice letter to Washington about it, telling them that until he can get this matter settled it is impossible to negotiate wih Mr. Hoover or anybody else about going ahead with the project. Truly, Mr. King missed his vocation; he should have been a diplomatist.

Not that Canada is terribly anxious about the St. LavTence Waterway. Except for Toronto, which has a pipe-dream about being a great seaport, it isn't anxious at all. That, however, isn't the point. What we are trying to show is the tortuous, circuitous, yet adroit way Mr. King has of getting out of saying Yes or No.
Yeste-rday we had a remarkable speech from the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). We need not worry as to where the Liberal party stands to-day jn this matter. The official Liberal party has always been opposed to the hydro and cheap light and power, controlled and developed and owned by the people themselves. In 1905 we had just such a spectacle as we saw yesterday in the Prime Minister's speech. At that time similar speeches were being made by members of the Ross-Hardy government, who were removed from office by the people when they gave away the last concession of 20,000 feet of water in the Niagara, The day before yesterday the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) also made a speech in this house, showing that he had not played the game with the Manitoba members.
Last May I was prepared to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of raising this very question of the Seven Sisters site. On that occasion I moved for the production of papers, letters and so forth regarding the Seven Sisters, falls, and I also requested at the same time the correspondence with reference to the Slave falls. The Minister of the Interior, in reply to that motion, is reported:
Hon. Mr. Stewart:
A great deal of corespondence would have to be brought down if the motion was passed as it stands, and I am informed that a great deal of the correspondence is not material to anyone. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would let the motion stand until I have had an opportunity of discussing it with him. I think we can reduce the order very materially.
The report goes on-" motion stands." In that reply the minister states that a great deal of the correspondence " is not material." Of course it is not material to anyone now except the Winnipeg Electric interests. The hon. gentleman certainly led me to believe that nothing would be done during the recess; that is the impression I gathered. The motion came up again in the house and was passed unanimously on June 6, and shortly after that parliament prorogued. From that day to the present time I have not seen these papers. A few weeks ago in this session I moved again for the correspondence and I understand that it was brought down yesterday. After the prorogation of parliament I happened to be in Orillia and I read that a bank merger was taking place, and a few weeks later the Seven

Natural Resources-Mr. Church
Sisters development was handed away over the head of the Manitoba legislature, over the heads of the people's representatives in that body and over the head of this parliament, to the Winnipeg Electric Company; and this parliament also has been treated with contempt by the government, as evidenced by their refusal to bring down the papers, and getting away with things in the recess of parliament.
At the present time the people of Manitoba and, indeed, of Canada are faced with a very grave menace to future development. It is most regrettable, now that efforts are being made to re-establish Canadian business on a firm and solid basis, that the difficulties are being multiplied in this way, and that such a basic necessity as hydro-electric power should be alienated in that province. Yet this is what the federal government is doing over the heads of the people's representatives in parliament. The federal government and the Bracken administration are jointly responsible for the unholy alliance which has been formed to give away the water-powers of Manitoba, which should be under the control of the people of that province. This government has simply handed over a vast monopoly to the Winnipeg Electric Company and the parent body, which has interests as far as the United States, Brazil and even in Tokyo. The Canadian people are no longer willing to sell its rights to private interests, and the government has no right handing out monopolies in this way without the consent of the people. As a matter of fact, it was a miracle that the Georgian bay canal deal did not go through in 1927, with Sir Clifford Sifton, Sir Herbert Holt and others who were interested. But that deal would have been consummated if the new proposed rules to be brought down were then in existence; it would have been put through if the government's new gag rules could have been applied then here in parliament.
In the present transaction millions of dollars are being handed over to a monopoly, at the expense of the people. Only the other day evidence came out to show that while there may be small deficits for the first two or three years in the development of this power by the people, yet in a short time the Winnipeg Electric Company under the present plan will be taking a million a year profit out of the pockets of the residents of Winnipeg. Generations yet unborn will suffer in consequence in their industrial, economic and domestic life. The government is simply mortgaging the labour of future generations for the benefit of a few power grabbers, and party henchmen 78594-S5.J
in Winnipeg, and this is being done, as I have said, over the heads of the people's representatives.	_
Now where is democracy while all this is going on? Where are all "the great principles of liberalism" which roll so glibly off the Prime Minister's tongue when an election campaign is on? Why, the old family compact, in the days of the struggle for responsible government, is nothing to the 1929 family compact of hon. gentlemen opposite-in their conspiracy to part with the water-powers that belong to the people of the province of Manitoba. Yesterday the Prime Minister made a speech in regard to natural resources, defending the government in relation to this question. Well, to-morrow a similar defence will be put forward in this house in regard to the Beauharnois power. But there is this difference between the old family compact and' the compact we see today: in the old days they had nothing to give away, while to-day they are giving away to favourites the rights of the people in natural resouees. We see nothing here now but every day the incapacity of the government to govern or to solve any economic problem, and the whole attitude of the government in this matter indicates the decay of parliament and the decline of the House of Commons; for over our heads they part with these resources without our consent. The economic loss and waste which we have seen in the railways out west is due directly to the insane railway policy of the Liberal party and the Grand Trunk Pacific and Crows-nest pass deals of other days. In those days the cry was "Cox can't wait," but now it is "Backus can't wait; Jones can't wait; Dafoe can't wait." Dafoe, this great pooh-bah, this king-maker who stands behdnds the throne in Ottawa and Winnipeg and pulls the strings,, can't wait; Bracken can't wait; Nesbitt can't wait, but the working classes and farmers of Manitoba can wait and will wait until doomsday before they will get any control or regulation of these rates, now that the power grabbers have won. In and out of this house the Liberal government always has been the foe of cheap light and power, not only in Ontario but in the other provinces as well, and have stood for private interests. The government of the day seem to have adopted the motto of a celebrated American, so far as the public of Manitoba are concerned, namely, "The public be damned!" The government can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but they cannot fool all the people all the time in connection with this great give-away of

Natural Resources-Mr. Church
tion a dividend on millions of dollars' worth of watered stock. I will move an amendment in a few minutes which will give the Liberals of Manitoba a chance to declare themselves.
The Minister of the Interior has mentioned the safeguards which have been put around this lease. He said it was only a temporary lease. It is a definite lease, an agreement in writing. Anyone who is familiar with the city of Winnipeg knows what a grasping, avaricious monopoly the Winnipeg Electric is. The minister says that there is control exercised over the rates; he says that the Public Utilities Commission of Manitoba, which is only the Bracken cabinet, governs the rates to be charged for light and power.


Charles A. Stewart: The Bracken government is not the utilities commission; Manitoba has a utilities board.


Thomas Langton Church: What has this so-called
utilities commission of Manitoba done to regulate the power rates for the city of Winnipeg. They have and can do nothing. The consumers of power, both for commercial and domestic lighting, if they want to get the project back, will have to pay a heavy ransom as Ontario and Toronto had to do in a light, power and transportation sense.


Charles A. Stewart: The city of Winnipeg own their own power plant and therefore the commission would not function at all.


Thomas Langton Church: The Minister of the Interior is trying to use up the balance of my time. I think I know something about the city of Winnipeg; I know they own their own plant separate from the private company and have a very fine scheme of domestic lighting for the homes and domestic services and an excellent heating plant and all that. The city of Winnipeg never had a chance on this Seven Sisters grab; the city council reversed a decision they had given for public ownership of this particular Seven Sisters site. You would think you could look to the Winnipeg board of trade to do something, but you might just as well have looked to the board of trade of the city of Toronto in 1905 when the hydro got started. The Winnipeg Board of Trade would rather back the Winnipeg Electric Company than support public ownership and public control. If the cheap light and power movement in Manitoba has to depend on ministers like the Minister of the Interior, the board of trade of Winnipeg, the city council and the Liberals like the public ownership Liberals from the province of Manitoba, then it is good-bye and good-night to the cheap

light and power movement in that province. Caesar once said that all Gaul was divided into three parts. The gall of this Winnipeg electric crowd, and the Beauharnois crowd in Ottawa is so great it is absolutely indivisible.
The minister said that Doctor Hogg was sent up there to investigate this matter, but his report is almost absurd and will in time be found to have been all wrong, just as the one we had back in 1905 from Lord Kelvin when he was brought out from the old country to report on the Decew falls, near Thorold and to report on the practicability of transmitting power from Thorold to Hamilton, a little over 40 miles. He ridiculed it as an impossibility. He said that from an economic standpoint it was impossible to do it. Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck had confidence enough to start the hydro-electric system in Ontario. What was the result? Lord Kelvin said that it could not be done. He said: If you put your money in the Welland canal you can dig and you will get it out again; but if you put it into hydro, you will never get it back. Lord Kelvin was wrong; so is Doctor Hogg on the Seven Sisters matter.
I have not covered all the facts that I should like to have referred to, but I will now move my amendment. I beg to move, seconded by Mr. Gott:
That all the words after the word "That" in the motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
It be referred to the standing committee of this house on mines, forests and water-powers, to consider and investigate all leases, grants or permits issued during the past year in respect of natural resources under the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada, known as "water-powers"; with power to send for all papers and documents, to summon and examine witnesses, regarding any such leases, grants and permits.
And further, with power to the said committee to report whether such leases, grants or permits are in the public interest, and whether the interests of the federal authorities are amply protected.
And also to report whether, in the opinion of the committee, the said lease or permit in respect of the Seven Sisters falls in the province of Manitoba should be revoked and cancelled, and if so, upon what terms and conditions.
And to report all matter and findings to this house.


Mr. SPEAKER:: In my humble opinion
the amendment is out of order, for the following reasons. Beauchesne, section 397, states:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.

Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King
The hon. gentleman will notice that the question before the house is an abstract one.
It reads:
That in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal parliament, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.
By his amendment the hon. gentleman asks, inter alia, that the lease of a specific waterpower called the Seven Sisters falls be investigated by the committee on mines, forests and water-powers. What is the procedure in this matter? I read this from Bourinot, fourth edition, page 321:
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment has been proposed, and this rule has been invariably insisted upon by Canadian speakers.
Further:
If such a practice were tolerated, all the benefits of giving due notice of a motion, and allowing the house a full opportunity of considering a question, would be practically lost. A member would then be in a position to surprise the house at any moment with a motion of importance,-
This is undoubtedly a question of importance.
-and the necessity of giving notice would be superseded to all intents and purposes. It is not, therefore, surprising that the latest English decisions are in accord with those of the Canadian speakers. Sir Erskine May, in later editions, however, lays it down as "an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed."
I have on many occasions looked over precedents on the vexed question of amendments and subamendments, and the ruling is uniform on the subject that no new question must be introduced on an amendment; it must be relevant to the main question. In the present instance the resolution is an abstract one while the amendment refers to a specific subject different from the main one. I therefore rule the amendment out of order.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, would you
hear just a word on that before coming to a final decision? The test, as I understand it, of the matter in accordance with the paragraph you read from Bourinot is the question: is the amendment relevant? The motion 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 resolution refers to the question of the natural resources under federal control and
whait disposition should be made of them. The amendment refers to the very same thing.
It deals exclusively with natural resources under federal control, proposing another way of investigation or inquiry than that proposed by the motion. Surely it is relevant to the motion whatever else may be said about it.
If it is relevant to the motion, no notice is required of such an amendment. I can understand the force of the rule that where a new question is raised irrelevant to the motion, then notice must be given and the rule must be enforced. But if the point at issue is the relevancy of the motion-and that is what Bourinot says-it refers to the identical matter and proposes merely another way of dealing with it.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	I entirely disagree with
my hon. friend the acting leader of the opposition as to the relevancy of the amendment proposed. The amendment of the hon. member is an effort to obtain from the house a committee to investigate a particular transaction referred to more or less specifically in the last clause of his amendment. The amendment in my opinion is so framed as to appear to reflect upon the manner in which the administration has carried out its obligations with respect to certain government leases. If the hon. member has in his mind a suspicion or any ground for suspicion that in any particular the ministry has not performed its duties or any member of the ministry his duties in a befitting manner, he has the privilege, which every hon. member has, on his own responsibility to say so and to make a charge. If the hon. member on his responsibility as a member of this house will make a charge against any member of the administration, I can assure him that the government will very speedily grant him a committee; but we do not propose to have the time of parliament wasted by accepting amendments proposed by the hon. member for general inquiries which amendments are in no way relevant to the subject being discussed and which in this particular instance has to do not with parliament's investigation of one particular transaction or combination of transactions, but wholly with ratification by parliament of the disposition of aii the natural resources of the country.


Hugh Guthrie: The amendment refers to all transactions within the space of a year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that
His Honour the Speaker has placed the right interpretation on the motion of the hon. mem-

Natural Resources-Mr. Brown
ber, and having regard to the authorities which His Honour has cited, the house should support his ruling. One rule cited was that:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.
It is certainly clear that notice should be given, in a matter of this kind, because the amendment does raise a separate and distinct question. Nor does the amendment run consecutively with any portion of the main motion, and the rule in that regard is:
Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I contend that this amendment would not be consistent with the main motion which is now before the house, and that the ruling of His Honour the Speaker in that regard should be supported.


Hewitt Bostock: If no other hon. member wishes to speak to the point of order, I have already declared the amendment out of order, and I so declare now.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: When the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) was speaking in this debate, he mentioned that there were some Manitoba members who did not agree with the position that had been taken by the majority, and at that point the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. IV oodsworth) interjected what seemed to me to be a rather offensive remark-" Name them as though the particular members referred to were endeavouring to hide themselves and to refuse to accept responsibility for their attitude. I was one of those who did not agree with the position taken by the majority of the Manitoba members, and I was in good company. I was in company with men who were capable of taking facts, as well as theories, into consideration, men who were capable of taking into account the situation that prevailed at the time these negotiations were being entered into. I was in company with men who were just as sincerely anxious to solve this question in the interests of the people of Manitoba as were those who took the contrary view.
This is not the time nor the place to discuss the conduct of the Manitoba government. I do not conceive that this is a time to discuss the terms of the contract into which they entered, nor do I think that the extent to which any individual Manitoba member may have helped the Bracken government in the provincial election of 1927 is a matter of any great interest to this house. The question

before us is the conduct of this government and the responsibility of the minister in relation to this lease, and that, I think, is the only question that should be the subject of discussion at the present time.
The main grievance seems to have been that the minister did not to the very' last letter fulfil the obligation that he had assumed in consulting with certain Manitoba members, but it has been made clear also in the course of this debate that the minister did consult with seven of the Manitoba members. in a group, in the city of Winnipeg. It would seem, therefore, that according to the view of certain hon. members the Minister of the Interior could only have fulfilled his obligation by consulting with them. Apparently they assume that they were the ones who must be consulted, and that if they were not consulted, then the minister did not fulfil his obligation. Just at this point let me say that these same members seemed to arrogate to themselves the right to dictate the policy of this government and of this parliament, as well as that of the government and legislature of Manitoba, and of the city council of Winnipeg, and that if action were not taken by these various bodies according to their preconceived views, then that action must necessarily be wrong.
The resolution on the order paper is in very general terms, but everybody knows that it was introduced because a specific question had been brought to the attention of the public. Therefore, I propose to speak briefly as regards my own attitude towards the situation that confronted us during the last session.
Reference has been made to a round robin that was signed by the federal members from Manitoba. I do not know why they introduced that subject. It seems to me that they have made no point by introducing it. The only point that could be made was that they might urge that those who took a position contrary to the position which they themselves had taken were in some way receding from the position which was taken when that round robin was signed. Certainly we signed that document; there is no question about that. I had forgotten the exact terms of the document, but I had a fair understanding of what it meant, and I know what was in my mind when I signed it. As I understand1 it, we signed a petition addressed to the Minister of the Interior urging that when that particular lease was granted, the Manitoba government should have the first opportunity of acquiring that particular waterpower site. Having done that, I conceived that we had discharged our duty in the

Natural Resources*-Mr. Brovm
matter. It was a perfectly proper step for us to take to ask the Minister of the Interior to allow the Manitoba government to have the first say in the disposition of that power site. Not only was that my understanding of the document, but I think the terms of the document itself confirm my understanding, and show that that is all that could be read into it. The petition was addressed to the Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior, at Ottawa, and reads:
We the undersigned members of parliament from the province of Manitoba respectfully request that the power site on the Winnipeg river known as Seven Sisters falls be retained for the use of the government of the province of Manitoba in their own provincial hydro-el eetr'ic system.
That is exactly what has been done. The course that was indicated by the majority as the proper one to be taken contained three propositions: first, that the Manitoba government should have the first say as to the disposition of the power site; secondly, the Winnipeg city council, and thirdly, the Winnipeg Electric Company. But Mr. Bracken took the position that if the lease were not granted to the Winnipeg Electric Company, he was going to assert his rights and still occupy the position of priority which had been accorded to him. Now if the course that, had been advised by these other gentlemen had been followed, then when it came to granting the lease to the Winnipeg Electric Company, the Manitoba government would have had no say whatever as to the terms of that lease, nor would it have been able to enter into a contract with them, as it did.
What was the position taken by the minority of the Manitoba members? The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) has stated that he took a certain position at that time, and that he has not since changed his mind. I think perhaps some others of us can say the same, that the position which we took we deemed then, as we deem it now, to be the right one. I took this position in regard to the disposition of that site. As I have already said, when we signed that round robin, and presented it to the Minister of the Interior, I felt that we were doing our duty as representing the people of the province of Manitoba.
Having done that , I took the position that we had discharged our full duty, and that any further responsibility must rest upon the government of Manitoba, with whom the people of the province would deal when the time came. I know the Minister of the Interior did not accept as fully as I did the view that
he should act as trustee for and in accordance with the wishes of the province of Manitoba.
It will be .recalled that there had been an interprovincial conference in the fall of 1927. The announcement then made in regal'd to the objections that hitherto had been raised by the other provinces with regard to the return of these resources to the prairie provinces was sufficient I thought even at that time to warrant the government acting on the principle that they would dispose of these resources in harmony with the wishes of the government of Manitoba. So when the announcement was made following that conference, I said at once that it fully justified the position that I had taken. I think hon. members will agree that the government acting as it did following the conference with the government cf Manitoba, was simply acting in accord with the course that I had considered proper to pursue throughout the negotiations.
Now, reference has already been made to that conference. I was rather amused when the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) the other night in discussing this matter seemed more than ordinarily to attempt to overwhelm the house with a multitude of words. I could not but wonder whether he was doing what the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) charged the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) with doing last session, and which he himself confessed he sometimes did, that when his argument was bad he made up for it by vigor of assertion.


Mr. STEVENS:: That was a confession,
made in the spirit of contrition at that.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes. Now, we were well aware that that conference was to be held, it was a matter of public knowledge, and indeed I had special reason for knowing, due to the fact already mentioned by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen) that there was a resolution on the order paper by the hon member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) dealing with the disposition of certain natural resources in the west. During the Easter recess last session I happened to get hold of a copy of the Orange Sentinel containing an article by its parliamentary correspondent, in which he indicated that this resolution might possibly prove to be embarrassing to the Progressive members from Manitoba. He said:
It will be singularly embarrassing to the Liberal-Progressive element in the house, who are all from the western provinces. They must vote for the transfer of the natural resources to their different provinces if they desire to consider the sentiment of their constituents.

Natural Resources-Mr. Brown
On the other hand, if tS*ey take that course, they will defeat the government, and they are not very keen about that. It puts them on the gridiron, and places them in a hot spot between their desire to support the government and their duty fairly to represent their constituents.
Well, to be forewarned is to be forearmed, so when I was home at Easter I called together twenty-five or thirty of my supporters and placed the situation before them. I told them there wras a possibility that the resolution by the hon. member for Frontena'c might come up an a form to involve a vote of want of confidence in the government, and I asked them how I should act under the circumstances. Well, they did not want the government to be defeated. For whatever differences there may be between the Liberals and Progressives of Manitoba, they are unanimous on one point, they do not want a Tory government. They told me they did not want to see the government defeated on that resolution, but they felt very strongly on the question of the return to the province of its natural resources. I told my supporters that according to the press there was to be a conference between the Dominion government and the government of Manitoba. They decided then that the proper course for me to pursue, if the matter came up in the form I suggested was that if I could get an assurance from the Prime Minister that the proposed conference would take place, then I might vote against the resolution of the hon. member for Frontenac, involving as it would a vote of want of confidence in the government. That resolution was not proceeded with. I was sorry for I wished to show how we would act when placed on the gridiron. I mention that because of the discussion which has arisen in regard to that conference. It was a matter of public knowledge, and I had an assurance from the Prime Minister that the conference would be held. The result of the conference was entirely satisfactory to me.
It has been said that when the agreement was made following that conference the Seven Sisters site should have been made an exception. I cannot understand how anyone could make such a suggestion. In a conference of that kind where it was agreed that the natural resources should be handled in harmony with the wishes of the government of Manitoba, it would have been absolutely absurd to make an exception with regard to one particular case. It is true that Premier Bracken in his negotiations held a position to the disadvantage of those who took the other view, but none the less they must accept the position as they find it. I have not
IMr. Brown.]
the slightest doubt that if the question of the return of the natural resources to Manitoba had come up at an earlier stage of last session, and if such a method of dealing with (them had (been suggested, every member would have voted in favour of the course adopted, and probably would have resented the suggestion that any exception at all should be made.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose at this time to deal with the terms of the contract made by the Manitoba government. That is a matter for which that government is responsible to its own people, and they alone have the right to decide the question. As an elector of Manitoba I propose when the time comes to deal with the question according to my best judgment, just as I try to deal with the questions that come before this house, and I do not think anything is gained by introducing irrelevancies that have not the slightest bearing on the matter in hand.
I propose to vote against the resolution. I have heard it suggested that an amendment might be moved limiting the scope of the resolution to water-power. The suggested amendment has not yet been moved. I cannot vote for any resolution or amendment -that would in any way have the effect of qualifying the agreement that was made between this government and the government of Manitoba that the resources should be handled by this government in harmony with the wishes of the provincial government.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the
Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) stated that after communicating with as many members from Manitoba as he could reach during the summer, he found that the opposition which had been so evident here last session was largely removed. In view of that statement, and in order to put my position clearly on record, I feel it my duty to say that my opposition to the leasing of the Seven Sisters falls power site to private interests continued from first to last. I know that was the position also of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. McDiarmid). In fact, all of the members in this house from the city of Winnipeg, whether Liberal or Labour, were united in their opposition to the transaction from the beginning to the end, and I am not aware of the slightest wavering on the part of a single one of them.
The various step3 that were taken in connection with this whole controversy have been enumerated, and I shall not deal with them in detail. The first document which I placed

Natural Resources-Mr. Thorson
on my file in connection with, the matter-and I have a very voluminous file on the subject- is a copy of the letter dated February 8, addressed to the Minister of the Interior and signed by every single private member from Manitoba in this house. We all signed that document thinking that we were supporting and furthering the wishes of the government of Manitoba.
The next event of importance in connection with the transaction was the announcement which appeared in the press on March 22, 1928. The announcement as it appeared in the Manitoba Free Press of that day is as follows:
Abandons Scheme for Development at Seven Sisters
Will purchase supply from Winnipeg Electric Company at $13.80 per horse-power on thirty-year agreement
Abandoning its scheme for the development of the Seven Sisters falls site, as a public ownership enterprise, in consequence of the unfavourable report submitted by Dr. T. A. Hogg, Ontario power expert, the provincial government has entered into a contract with the Winnipeg Electric railway for the supply of
30,000	horse-power for 30 years at $13.80 per horse-power.
As a result of the agreement the company will at once proceed with a $15,000,000 power development scheme at the Seven Sisters falls.
I will say quite frankly that this announcement, coming so soon after the previous request of the Manitoba government, came upon us like a thunderbolt, in view of the previous attitude taken by the Manitoba legislature and the Manitoba government with regard to the Seven Sisters falls power site.
The controversy then began to rage at Ottawa. The Minister of the Interior asked the opinion of the Manitoba members with regard to the application of the private company. We were bombarded in the usual way with letters, telegrams, and resolutions passed by various bodies and organizations both for and against the application of the private company for a lease of the power site. The Manitoba members held several meetings to discuss the matter and during the Easter recess a committee of their number went to Winnipeg to study the situation there. I was not a member of that committee but I had already advised the Minister of the Interior of my opposition to the application made by the private company.
On May 15 the Manitoba members held their final meeting in connection with the matter, and I am quite free to admit that it was a very stormy one. A letter was drafted and sent to the Minister of the Interior advising him of the views of the majority of the
Manitoba members. I was one of the majority who voted for delay in granting the application that was under consideration. The terms of the letter addressed to the Minister of the Interior have already been placed on Hansard and I need not refer to them further.
On May 25 a very large delegation came from Winnipeg, many members of which were political and personal friends of my own, urging that the lease be granted immediately. That delegation met a committee of the cabinet in the morning, and in the afternoon there was a meeting of the Winnipeg delegates, the Minister of the Interior and several of the Manitoba members. I was one of the members present at that meeting, and nothing that I heard on that occasion caused me in any way to change the opinion I had formed.
Reference has also been made to the statement made by the Minister of the Interior on the floor of this house in reply to a question put forward by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). The statement of the minister is on Hansard and has already been referred to in the course of this debate. It is very wide in its terms: I must confess that the letter which was read this afternoon by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) comes as a shock to me. After the Minister of the Interior had made his statement on the floor of the house he gave us privately to understand that he would take no action in connection with the application for the lease until he had consulted further with the Manitoba members. That is the position in which the matter was left at the close of the 1928 session of parliament, which prorogued on June 13.
The right of the Manitoba members to intervene in the matter was freely challenged at the time, both editorially and in a resolution that was drafted by the persons who had arranged the Winnipeg delegation. That resolution was referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) ; it was obviously drafted in heat and lacked that calm deliberation which a resolution of that sort should have shown. I therefore make no further reference to it. I should like, however, to say a few words with regard to the question of responsibility for the administration of the natural resources of Manitoba. At the meeting with the members of the Winnipeg delegation, to which I have already referred, I took the view that we, as federal members, owed a duty to our constituencies in the matter and that we would discharge that duty in the best interests of our constituencies and not in the

Natural Resources-Mr. Thorson
interests of any groups or organizations; I took the view that we would discharge that duty in accordance with our best judgment. At that time there was no doubt whatsoever that the responsibility for dealing with the natural resources of Manitoba and with the application that was before the federal government for consideration lay primarily with the Minister of the Interior and the federal government. That fact was recognized by Premier Bracken himself in the communication which he addressed to the federal government. He had not expressed any desire to assume responsibility for granting the application of the private company; in fact, he had indicated in his letters that the responsibility for granting the application was solely that of the federal government. In his letter of March 22 he says:
I am writing you at this time to say that a satisfactory arrangement has been arrived at and that as soon as the details of our understanding are embodied in a contract between the Winnipeg Electric Company and the provincial government we shall be in a position to advise you that we shall withdraw our application for the lease of this site so as to leave the way open for such negotiation as may be necessary between the Winnipeg Electric Company and yourselves concerning the lease of the site.
The granting of the lease was to be made a matter of negotiation between the Winnipeg Electric Company and the federal government. Then he wrote again on April 25, as follows:
We are writing you now to advise you that a tentative contract between the Winnipeg Electric Company and the provincial government has been agreed upon, and that once you decide to lease the site to them you may disregard our application for the same. If for any reason, however, you should decide not to lease the site to the Winnipeg Electric Company, after all these negotiations, we desire our application to stand, since equally favourable terms must be secured to the provincial government from any other company securing the lease before we would relinquish our prior claim to it.
The question of where the responsibility lay agitated the minds of others. The Manitoba Free Press of May 26, the day after the Winnipeg delegation arrived in Ottawa, contained an editorial entitled "Where Responsibility Lies," the first paragraph of which contained the following:
The facts as to where power and responsibility lie in the granting of the right to make use of our natrual resources can be briefly stated. These resources belong to the crown as represented by the federal authority. Under the regulations, adopted by the Dominion government, the power of granting rights to cut timber or pulpwod, to develop mines or water-powers, rests with the Minister of the Interior. 
It is, of course, the right of anyone interested to make representations to the minister. He can listen to their representations and^ give effect to them if he chooses; but the decision is his and the responsibility is his.
Further on the editorial contains this statement:
Any claim which may be made by members of parliament from Manitoba that they have the right to decide is sheer pretention. They have neither a veto nor a directive powrer over the minister. What he does, he does on his own responsibility.
On his own responsibility to whom? His responsibility is not to any provincial government but to this parliament, of which we are the members most interested. If the minister is not responsible to the members of this parliament, to whom is he responsible? We were not seeking in any way to assert any right to decide the matter in our capacity as private members of parliament. Under our system of government decision with respect to matters of this nature rests with the cabinet who, I would remind the house, occupy the positions which they d'o because the people of Canada have seen fit to send more members to this side of the house than to the other. The responsibility for their decision in this matter, as in all executive matters, is to this house. Should we, who had been expressly asked for our opinions in the matter, have refused to give them? Each Manitoba member gave his opinion, I believe, in the honest and sincere discharge of the responsibilities which he in turn owed to the electors of his own constituency. I am not impugning the motives of a single Manitoba member. On June 2, 1928, the Free Press contained a further editorial entitled:
The Extent of the Bracken Government Responsibility.
The last paragraph of that editorial is as follows:
The Manitoba government, by its action in withdrawing its application, left the field clear for the Winnipeg Street Railway to press its application at Ottawa; but it did not thereby, as many of its critics insist, turn Seven Sisters falls over to the street railway. It has not even made recommendations to that effect. It is for Mr. Stewart to say whether the application is to be granted or not. His liberty of decision in this respect is not in the least limited by what has been done by the Bracken government.
Up to that time there had been no suggestion on the part of the Manitoba government that the Minister of the Interior necessarily must act as the government of Manitoba might desire him to do and the Minister of the Interior admitted in this house that the responsibility was his.

Natural Resources-Mr. Thorson
This, then, was the situation when we left Ottawa at the close of last session. We who were urging that the lease should not be granted were attempting to assist the government in discharging their responsibilities in accordance with what we thought was in the best interests of the constituencies we represented.
Upon my return, to Winnipeg I made a public statement as to my stand in the matter on June 26, at a dinner given in my honour by some of my constituents. In order that I may place my stand on record I now read what I said on that occasion:
I would not be doing justice to my constituency or to myself if I failed to say a few words with regard to the Seven Sisters falls controversy and the stand which I took. On February 8, the 16 private members from Manitoba signed a letter addressed to the Hon. Charles Stewart requesting that the Seven Sisters power site be retained for the use of the province of Manitoba, notwithstanding the fact that there was a previous application from the Winnipeg Electric Company for the site. In so acting we were seeking to preserve what we all conceived to be the public interest of the province. The name of every single member from Manitoba, with the exception of the Hon. Robert Forke, is attached to that letter.
Naturally we were astonished when the agreement was signed between the province and the Winnipeg Electric Company and the application of the company was presented.
The responsibility for dealing with the application rested, as it still does, with Hon. Charles Stewart and the Dominion government. Mr. Stewart has adopted the practice in the past two years of consulting with the Manitoba members on matters affecting the disposal of natural resources in Manitoba. That policy worked well in the past, particularly in connection with the establishment of our great pulp and paper industry at Pine falls. That industry was established in spite of vigorous protests from several Winnipeg sources. I had an active share in the preliminary negotiations with the government here.
In pursuance of his practice Mr. Stewart asked the opinion of the Manitoba members as to what action should be taken on the application before him. We discussed the matter at several meetings, studied the question to the best of our ability with the information which was available to us.
On May 15, when we held a meeting at which we finally reached a decision, there were four members in favour of granting the application immediately and 10 against. I was one of the 10. Of the 10 members there were four Liberal, three Liberal Progressives, two Labour and one Progressive. Seven sit on the government side of the house and three with the opposition.
I mention these facts merely to show that the question was not one of party politics at Ottawa and it is not a political question in this city.
When I add that the city council is almost evenly divided on the matter and that six out of the 10 members from Winnipeg in the
provincial legislature are in favour of delay and full consideration of the question, I think you will agree that there is a strong difference of opinion. I also suggest that it is possible for all these representatives elected by the people in various capacities to hold the views they do without being either fools or knaves. It seems the lot of public men to suffer abuse. I realize that fact, but I do not intend to deviate from the discharge of my responsibilities through fear of personal abuse and am prepared to submit to it, if necessary, in the discharge of my public duties.
I voted against the granting of the application because I believed it was not in the public interest to grant it. I did not wish to stand in the way of development, but unless it was demonstrated to me that it was necessary to grant this valuable site to private interests for development, I did not wish that to be done. I felt also that the grant of this site to the Winnipeg Electric Company would place the Winnipeg hydro at a serious disadvantage and would endanger its future.
At present we have an ideal situation in Winnipeg, two concerns handling power, one publicly, the other privately owned, each acting as a check on the other and each controlling a substantial block of power. The Winnipeg hydro has 138.000 horse-power at Point du Bois and the Winnipeg Electric 205,000 at Great falls and Pinawa.
I was riot convinced, and am not now convinced, that the shortage of power is so acute that it is essential to turn the site over to a private concern. Granting the site to the Winnipeg Electric Company would leave our great power asset 30 per cent in the hands of the public and 70 per cent in private hands. That in my opinion, would be fraught with serious danger.
If there is no available market for power developed by the province, there is no immediate need for development by the Winnipeg Electric.
We are told that the present horse-power resources will be exhausted in two years. I doubt the accuracy of that statement. If the provincial government or the city of Winnipeg are not prepared to develop the Seven Sisters site then I am in favour of development along the following lines:
The Winnipeg hydro to develop Slave Falls and the Winnipeg Electric McArthur Falls. That would give 228,000 horse-power to the former and 259.000 horse-power to the latter. That process of development, even admitting the statement as to power shortage, would amply provide for power needs for at least six years and would maintain an even balance between the two systems, a consideration which I deem highly desirable.
By that time the development at Pine Falls must take place and an additional block of power amounting to 111,000 horse-power would be available.
The Seven Sisters site should be used as a reservoir from which the two competing systems could draw. In my opinion it would be profitable and sound business for the province to develop the Seven Sisters site in the future when the power situation requires it, with this situation in mind; either to go into the power business or preferably to sell to the competing systems in large blocks as required for distribution by them.
558	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Thorson
It is profitable for the Winnipeg Electric to do this now. Why should it not also be profitable for the province? This wholesale business would be profitable in itself and would serve as a profitable basis for extension of the system elsewhere if it should be deemed advisable.
We must remember that the province outside of Winnipeg has rights in the matter which must be considered.
The situation at Pinawa could be easily met by allotting to the Winnipeg Electric a reasonable block of power in return for closing up the Pinawa channel. In my opinion the Winnipeg Electric would be glad to come to such an arrangement if the control of Seven Sisters was in the hands of the province.
We have had many battles in the past over the Winnipeg river and we have reaped the rewards of vigilance and foresight. Waterpower is too vital an asset to hand over without careful deliberation and I see nothing but value in a thorough airing of this controversy.
It is not pleasant for those around whom it centres, but that is of minor importance. The essential thing it that the best interests of the public must be safeguarded.
I have stated very briefly my reasons for taking the stand which I did and I see no cause for receding from it. It was no easy matter to come to a decision in view of the differences of opinion, the pressure that was brought to bear and the threats that were made. Each member, when he voted as he did, took tile responsibility for his decision on his own shoulders. I am not seeking to have this meeting endorse my views. Mr. Robson has his views on the matter and many of my best friends are opposed to me on this question. They are entitled to their opinions.
I am not vain enough to claim infallibility of judgment. Time alone will tell whether my attitude was right or wrong. I think it was right and I shall face the responsibility for my actions when the time comes.
Then came the natural resources agreement between the Manitoba government and the Dominion government. I will deal with the natural resources agreement a little later. Personally I cannot complain that I was not consulted by the Minister of the Interior. It is true that I was not consulted until after the natural resources agreement had been arrived at, but subsequently to the date of that agreement I was consulted on several occasions. I think it is only fair to the minister to say that. He saw me on July 6, if I remember correctly, but he could not have taken away from the interview we had then the belief that my opposition had weakened in any way. He saw several of us again in Winnipeg in the month of August, and my impression of that meeting was that there had been no change in the attitude of the members present at that meeting with the possible exception of one member. I had not altered in any manner the position which I had previously taken regarding this matter. On September 5, learning that it was likely that the matter would be finally dealt with by the 
cabinet, I wired to Ottawa stating that the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. McDiarmid) and myself were strongly opposed to the granting of the lease, and asking for an opportunity to appear before the cabinet to present our views. On September 6 I received a reply stating that the matter would come before the cabinet two days later, and I left Winnipeg on the evening of the day I received that reply. On September S I appeared before those members of the cabinet who were in Ottawa at the time and urged our opposition to the granting of the lease.
After the natural resources agreement was entered into between the province of Manitoba and the Dominion of Canada the question of the responsibility for administering the resources of Manitoba took on a different complexion. Premier Bracken, who a short time before had requested that the Seven Sisters falls power site should be reserved for the province of Manitoba, now insisted that under the terms of the natural resources agreement, and more particularly clause 6 of that agreement, the Dominion government should grant the lease to the private company immediately. I believe there was quite a lengthy correspondence between the provincial government and federal government with regard to the subject; in fact the correspondence amounted almost to a barrage. Before the lease was signed the federal government insisted on an order in council from the Manitoba government, and the Manitoba government finally passed an order in council directing the federal government to issue the lease as set out therein. Finally the lease was granted at the insistence of Premier Bracken.
In putting forward the opposition which I did both before and after the natural resources agreement was entered into. I was acting in what I believed to be the best interests of the people who had sent me to parliament. I was convinced that the majority of the electors in my constituency were opposed to the granting of this lease to private interests. I took the view that so long as the lease was not. actually signed there was still hope of saving the Seven Sisters falls from going into private hands-but stronger forces prevailed.


Mr. McGIBBON:: May I ask the hon.
member what his stand is to-day?
Mr. THORiSON:	I do not disapprove of
the natural resources agreement; I think it is a good agreement in so far as the province of Manitoba is concerned. I agree that it is high time that the question .of responsibility for the administration of the natural resources

Natural Resources-Mr. Thorson
of the province of Manitoba should be definitely settled and one authority given control over them.
However, I have this to say in connection with the natural resources agreement: there has been a fundamental change in the policy of this government as to the administration of the natural resources of the province of Manitoba. Prior to the making of the natural resources agreement in July last, the federal government took the view that the responsibility for administering the natural resources lay with it, and that it was not bound by the wishes of the Manitoba government. It did not follow in all respects the wishes of the Manitoba government in connection with the matter. An outstanding example of that is to be found in the manner in which the Minister of the Interior and the federal government dealt with the pulp and paper proposition of two years ago, to which I referred in my speech at Winnipeg. The federal government did not accept the advice of the provincial government in respect of that transaction and it had never formally recognized the right of the provincial government to dictate to it what its policy of administration of the resources of the province should be. It had of course followed the policy of consulting the province of Manitoba in respect of the larger matters but it had reserved the right of deciding for itself whether it would follow the wishes of the province or not.
When the natural resources agreement was entered into there was a vital change in the policy that had been followed prior to that time; for, in pursuance of clause 6 of the agreement, the federal government has constituted itself merely the agent of the provincial government to administer the resources according to the wishes of the provincial government and it has definitely and formally recognized its position as a trustee. Perhaps this is as it should be, but I have this criticism to make: the first five clauses of the natural resources agreement carry with them the implication that they shall not go into effect until they have been ratified by parliament. I should perhaps state that in a different way-that the final transfer of the resources shall not be effective until the findings of the commission set up have been ratified by parliament, but there is no proviso of that sort with regard to clause 6 of the agreement. Immediately and automatically on the making of that agreement, the responsibility of the Dominion government for administering the resources is changed. I have this criticism to make, namely, that the change in policy was
so vital that 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 6 should not go into effect.
In view of the differences of opinion that existed in this house; in view of the differences of opinion that existed in Manitoba; in view of the undertaking which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) gave on the floor of 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 be ratified by parliament. That would have been in the interests of all concerned here; it would certainly have been in the interests of the government of Manitoba which finds itself in such difficulties to-day.
I have been very glad to associate myself with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps), and all the other members of this house who opposed the granting of the lease to private interests; but notwithstanding my opposition to the transaction I cannot agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, the mover of this resolution, as to the terms of his resolution. The argument of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the resolution appears to me almost unanswerable. It is impossible, in my opinion, to assign to parliament the executive functions of government. The business of administration could not go on if every disposal of property should, before becoming effective, be ratified by parliament. There is a further reason for my objection to the general terms of the resolution. I do not believe we should endeavour in this country unduly to restrict the executive. nor do I think we should attempt to develop a water-tight sytem of compartments of responsibility'. It is of the essence of our constitution that it should be elastic; that it should be based upon confidence and trust, and that as few restrictions as possible should be imposed upon those responsible for government. The electors of Canada send us to parliament with wide powers; having expressed their confidence in us, the will of the electors also determines from which party in this house the cabinet shall be formed and who shall be charged with the responsibility
560	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Howden
for executive acts. The resolution seeks to remove from the jurisdiction of the executive powers which are not legislative but executive. I do not believe that in the long run, much as it would have assisted us in this particular case, it would be in the interest of sound government to adopt the resolution. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is to be congratulated upon having made this motion and upon having discussed this very important question here. It will have served the very useful purpose of reminding the government of its responsibility to parliament. While executive acts must be performed by those appointed for the purpose, they are responsible for their executive acts to parliament. No cabinet in any British country should be allowed to forget for one moment that responsibility. I have fought the Seven Sisters falls power lease to the best of my ability; I have been opposed to the granting of the lease from the beginning to the end, but for the reasons I have given I cannot see my way clear to approving the resolution that is now before this house.


Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) I belong to the lesser group of the federal members from Manitoba who had under consideration last spring the matter of the Seven Sisters power lease in that province. For that reason I think it is up to me, as it were, to give the reasons for my stand in the house, and perhaps to mention one or two other matters relevant thereto.
The very able and comprehensive speech of the Prime Minister in this house yesterday afternoon surely made it plain that it was impossible for the house to adopt the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), and I shall not pause to speak on that point except to remind hon. members that should the house adopt such a resolution, and the government find itself thereby obligated to come to parliament for approval of every such agreement, not an acre of hay land, not a section of pasture, -not even a cord of pulpwood could be disposed of in the Dominion of Canada until the agreement had first been ratified by this House of Commons. I do not think, however,, that the purpose of the resolution really was to test the feeling of the house on the principle there involved. It seemed to me that it was being used rather as a weapon of attack and censure on the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart).
I sat here and listened to a rather savage attack from hon. members opposite on the 
hon. -minister, and I was reminded during the course -of their remarks of the story of Abraham Lincoln's dealcon-, who being caught one dark night in a heavy thunderstorm, cried, " Oh, Lord, give us a little more light and a little less noise," It was a two-sided attack, as it were. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre condemned the Minister of the Interior for having released the Seven Sisters power site without first obtaining the sanction -of the federal members from Manitoba.


James Shaver Woodsworth: After having given the -promise that he would do so.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it is pretty nearly time my hon. friend was corrected. I did not give a direct promise that I would consult every member and have every member satisfied, as my hon. friend will see if he will look up -my words. In speaking to the house, I said that it was an utter impossibility to satisfy everybody, and I should think my hon-. friend must have learned that by this time.


John Power Howden: A little later the minister was soundly taken to task by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) for having entered into an agreement with the province of Manitoba whereby that -province could direct the disposal of its natural resources. Speaking for myself, I cannot remember the Minister of the Interior having given any undertaking to the members representing Manitoba that he would not release the Seven Sisters power site without first Obtaining their permission, as it were, but -rather that he would inform us of any change of policy and let -us know before a final release of this power site was made. That much is certain, and that he did, with possibly one or two exceptions.
With regard to the charge of the hon. leader of the opposition, I would like to point out this fact, that if Manitoba had had control of her natural resources, as she should have years ago, there would have been no obligation on the federal members of this house from Manitoba to act as monitors, as it were, for the government of that province. Had Manitoba had control of her natural resources, the question would not have come before this federal house at all. Members from Manitoba have urged repeatedly that the natural resources be returned to that province, but yet when an occasion arises, when the province of Manitoba seeks to direct the disposal of one of her natural resources in connection with a project whidh she deems to be for the benefit -of the province, the federal

Natural Resources-Mr. Howden
members say: No, Manitoba is not right; she is either ignorant of her responsibility to her citizens, or worse, and is not to be trusted in this matter.
The attitude that was taken by myself, and I am sure by some of those who were with me, was that this was a provincial question. As I said before, if Manitoba had had control of her natural resources, as she should have had, the question would not have come before this house at all. We were urging that the natural resources be returned to the province, and for that reason I took the attitude that the matter might very well be left to the discretion of the province. But quite apart from that, and although it has been stated in this house that any contract that might have been made with a private power company was not worthy of consideration here, still that did have some influence on my attitude and action. I would like to state for the information of the house a few facts in connection with this matter:
1.	Manitoba was threatened with a shortage of industrial power.
2.	Manitoba could not consistently finance the development of the Seven Sisters power reach.
3.	Manitoba could not, under the most favourable circumstances, produce power as cheaply as arranged for under the contract with a private power company.
4.	The Manitoba government, the city council of Winnipeg, the Winnipeg board of trade, the trades and labour council, and all the big business and industrial interests, together with a number of the rural municipalities, were in favour of the immediate development of the Seven Sisters falls site, and so expressed themselves on many occasions.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I suggest that, so far as the trades and labour council is concerned, that is hardly correct.


John Power Howden: Two representatives of
the trades and labour council came to Ottawa, and they stated definitely that they represented some fourteen or fifteen branches of that council.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Their statements
were afterwards repudiated by the council.


John Power Howden: I cannot vouch for that.
I am giving that information for what it is worth. To continue:
5.	The Pinawa channel was leased to the Winnipeg Electric Company in perpetuity, and so was permanently alienated to Manitoba. The bearing of that will appear in the next clause.
6.	The power on the Seven Sisters site would be augmented by 50,000 horse-power by the closing of the Knawa channel. This could not have been done if the power site was developed by the province of Manitoba without securing the rights of the Winnipeg Electric Company over the Pinawa channel.
7.	The Seven Sisters site is not lost to the province of Manitoba, but ratheT it is rented at a good rental for thirty years to a firm which is in a position to carry on an immediate development, and which is under agreement to supply Manitoba with as much or as little power as she may require up to
30,000	horse-power, at a better price than that at which the province could hope to develop power itself. This relieves the province of the onus and responsibility of the distribution of the balance of the power developed1 at this site.
8.	The Manitoba provincial hydro, a government-owned utility, with a very considerable investment, has been in existence for some dozen years, and has supplied two or three towns and some fifty farmers with electricity, and incidentally has lost about $1,750,000 in the interval.
I mention this merely by way of showing that naturally the government of Manitoba was a little bit chary of entering into a deal which would cost it in the vicinity of thirty million dollars when its experience of public ownership had been so unsatisfactory.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the disposition of the Seven Sisters power site was of more vital interest to the government of Manitoba than probably any issue that had come before it since its accession to office. The government believed that the prosperity and the very industrial life of the province depended on the proper development of that power. That is why it was so insistent that the contract should be entered into.
For these reasons, I felt obliged to support the attitude of the government of Manitoba, and so when this matter was brought before the Manitoba group in this house, I moved the amendment that the attitude of this group was in accord with the action of the provincial government. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have explained my attitude.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


George Reginald Geary: I
quite agree with this much of what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thorson), that if nothing else



Natural Resources-Mr. Geary
results from this debate, at all events it will serve as a reminder to the government that in these important matters it should not proceed by order in council but should rather trust to the sense of parliament; it should trust to the declaration of parliament rather than legislate behind the closed doors, so to speak, of order in council. When my hon. friend says that, when he says that the government will be reminded of this, I take it he is perfectly aware of and subscribes to this state of facts, that the government has pursued such a course of action in this as well as in other matters and therefore needs reminding that it should hesitate to continue in the course it has adopted and has pursued so long, of legislating by order in council rather than by the free will of this parliament.
As I look through the correspondence which has been tabled, one thing stands out, and that is that the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) felt enough concern about this matter to realize that there would be no satisfaction in any way of dealing with it unless that way were by means of legislation. He evidently had communicated these views to Mr. Bracken of Manitoba, because there appears on the file a letter in which Mr. Bracken seeks to assure the Minister of the Interior that as a matter of fact the question of the Seven Sisters falls has received attention in the provincial legislature. And to substantiate this he goes to the trouble of transcribing newspaper reports of what different members of the legislature of Manitoba said. This was not action on the part of the legislature of Manitoba; it was simply Air. Bracken's method of trying to assuage certain fears in the breast of the Minister of the Interior as to the attitude of the legislature of that province towards what was proposed to be done in this instance. The minister had a perfect right to be concerned about what the legislature of Manitoba thought. It is a new venture for the province of Manitoba to deal with natural resources, and of all natural resources probably the most important, so far as our experience in this house goes, has been that of water-powers. So. as I observe. I think the minister was perfectly right to feel some concern about what the legislature of Manitoba thought of the alienation of water powers. But the provincial legislature had never had an opportunity to decide upon what should be done in regard to the granting of this particular water power, the Seven Sisters falls, nor for that matter of any other water power which is included in the general term natural resources. And if the Minister of the Interior and the government of which he is

a member had followed up that natural concern of theirs with some action we should have been saved all this trouble. Had they said to the prime minister of Manitoba, "Very well, your letter is good up to a certain point; even an order in council of your gov-[DOT] eminent, the executive, is good to a certain extent; but that is not enough for us to act upon. We prefer to have the firm declaration of the legislature itself, so that we may be assured that what we propose to do at the request of your government is what really suits the people, the electors, those who have a right to decide these great questions in your province"-if the minister had taken this stand it would have saved this trouble. It seems to me, therefore, that the manner of dealing with the matter was unsatisfactory. The matter should have been reserved to be dealt with, not by the government in council, behind the shelter of their doors and their walls, but in the broad open, where all the legislative acts could be laid before the people, who are the ultimate court in the matter, and who could decide whether or not those acts were proper.	.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does that remark apply to the province of Alberta as well?


George Reginald Geary: I do not know to what the hon. member refers.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Should the granting of a water power license in Alberta be submitted to its legislature before being granted to a private corporation?


George Reginald Geary: Probably I shall have something to say in answer to my hon. friend, but the question is not relevant at this particular moment; indeed, it is not specific enough.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The Minister of the
Interior granted to the Calgary Power Company a license to develop water power by consent of the premier of Alberta without the legislative assembly taking any action.


George Reginald Geary: I am not aware of that. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre also properly observed, the agreement which was come to early in July is somewhat peculiar. It has six or seven sub-heads, and of all these sub-heads there is only one which does not depend for ratification upon action of the legislature of the province and of this Dominion parliament; and that particular subsection is one which enables the province of Manitoba, through its government, to dictate to this government of Canada just what should be done in regard to the alienation of natural resources. I do not for the life of me see why all the other questions should be subject tc

Natural Resources-Mr. Geary
ratification by legislative action and this one question regarding alienation should be left wide open for the government to deal with. The whole agreement may be set aside because the legislature of Manitoba and this parliament do not happen to agree on what is done; but in the meantime the resources will have been alienated by the Dominion government, acting on the advice of the Manitoba government. I should think it would have been better for the government to pursue the same policy throughout rather than to have left that one matter subject to the whims of the government of Manitoba. Moreover, the Dominion government of the day not only felt some concern about this, but they felt some trepidation; the government felt that their action would be severely criticized, because they took very special care to see that they should be protected in every possible way. They were not satisfied with a letter; they were not satisfied with an interview; they insisted in this particular instance that there should be an order in council from the Manitoba government. That is far different from what was done in the matter we discussed the other day with respect to the waters of Niagara river. There the government entered into a treaty, concluded arrangements, signed the convention and protocol, and submitted to this house for ratification an agreement for the preservation of the scenic beauty of Niagara river; this they did without doing more at most than receiving a letter from the Premier of Ontario to the effect that the proceedings they were taking would be satisfactory to him. There, I suppose, it was felt that because the preservation of the scenic beauty of Niagara is a matter strongly favoured by the public, they would be safe in the course they took. In this case, however, it seems to me that the government felt that they were treading on dangerous ground and had to protect themselves in every possible way; they did not follow the ordinary course of receiving merely a letter from the prime minister of Manitoba, but sought to fortify themselves by getting no less than an order in council.
It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that this whole question of water-powers is quite distinct from the ordinary course of dealing with natural resources. The Prime Minister went to some pains to show how many individual matters relating to public letnds would be required to be considered by this parliament if we adopted legislation necessitating that before such orders in council went into effect they should be approved by the Dominion parliament, but these questions of water-powers stand on an entirely different
footing. Fresh in our minds, as having occurred less than two years ago, is the attempt to force through this house a matter affecting the water-powers of the Ottawa river, and fresh in our minds also is the fight waged in that regard and the temper of the house then so clearly shown. I take it from that discussion that the opinion of the 'house was that the natural monopolies of a country should be conserved for the people of the country and should not be diverted to private sources for private gain. With that expression of the feeling of this house in their minds the government of the day must have known that in dealing with a water-power, and especially one of such importance as the Seven Sisters development, they should have consulted the people of the province concerned not through their representatives in this house but through the legislature of the province, but now they seek to wash their hands of the matter by saying they simply handed the site over to the province of Manitoba. I say .that is not a valid defence; that is not the way to get out of the difficulty. This government must Share the onus with the government of Manitoba for what has happened with regard to the Seven Sisters falls.
Apparently the Minister of the Interior inaugurated a procedure in dealing with these matters by which he consulted with the members for the different constituencies of the province of Manitoba, and the hon. gentleman who preceded me said that had been a very satisfactory method. Has it turned out to be quite satisfactory? I am not going to weary the house by going into these things in detail, but I would refer to the passage from Hansard already cited, in which the Minister of the Interior gave his unequivocal, direct and final assurance in regard to this license. 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.
I presume he meant the difference of opinion as to whether this development should be undertaken by a public or a private enterprise. Later on he said-	*;


Charles A. Stewart: May I interject a correction? I had not in mind the interpretation my hon. friend has taken from my words; my difficulty was that the members for Manitoba were divided on the question, and that was the difference of opinion to which I had reference.


George Reginald Geary: Before that my hon. friend
"said:
.	.	.	. and now a very grave difference of
opinion exists with respect to the disposition of the Seven Sisters falls.
564	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Geary
I understand now from the minister that he was referring to the difference between the fourteen members from Manitoba, but as far as I know these members were practically unanimous, so where was the difference of opinion?


Charles A. Stewart: May I again correct my hon. friend? At no time were those members unanimous; no one has made that assertion.


George Reginald Geary: There was not a great deal of difference of opinion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the
round robin signed by everyone except the Minister of Immigration?


Charles A. Stewart: I have it
before me, and it is a clear indication that my business was to ascertain whether the city of Winnipeg would have the power or whether the provincial government would have it, and the round robin distinctly stated that if neither of these bodies wanted it, then their objection was removed. Later on the question of appeal to the legislature enters, or I do not understand the round robin.


George Reginald Geary: I will stand by Hansard,
and I quote from page 3853 of Hansard for June 6, 1928:
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 presume that means the Manitoba government.
-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 stand by Hansard on that; the minister knew action was to be taken by the city council of Winnipeg and by the provincial government; he knew there was a feeling among the members from Manitoba in regard to this matter, which I thought was fairly unanimous.	-


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I interrupt for a
moment? Quite a few of the members from

Manitoba were opposed to the proposition while other members were in favour of it. I think they stood about half and half, or nearly so.


George Reginald Geary: A round robin was signed.
I was not at the conference, so someone else can take up that point, but if the differences of opinion referred to were those existing among the fourteen members from Manitoba as now stated by the Minister of the Interior I do not read Hansard aright.


Mr.   BOWDEN@: Does not the hon. member think possibly this was taken out of the hands of the minister by the agreement reached between this government and the province of Manitoba?


George Reginald Geary: I think that begs the whole question, and I may pass it over because it is not pertinent to what I have in mind. I am not seeking to attack the Minister of the Interior except as the victim of the system which forced him to be the instrument of a government which did not do the right thing.
I do not intend to carry that further, but my point is that the government knew they were dealing with a matter which was of grave concern to all public bodies, to the city council of Winnipeg and to the entire province; knowing this, and having fresh in their minds the temper of this house together with the feeling of at least some of the citizens of Winnipeg, they should have taken steps to see that some parliamentary act was taken by the representatives of the people concerned before the Seven Sisters development was put under private ownership. I was reading what the minister said; that was on June 6, in reply to the leader of the opposition. Sometimes it seems to me that one overworks a quotation; I remember saying this before, but it seems to me that "the funeral baked meats were scarcely cold" before the Minister of the Interior sat down and wrote a letter to Mr. Bracken in which he used words to this effect: "Apparently this is a matter of great concern to Winnipeg and to this house, because yesterday it was brought up by the leader of the opposition, but I want to assure you that we have decided to grant this permit. However, for the sake of appeasing these gentlemen," probably the round robin gentlemen, for all I know, "we will let it rest a month or two. Perhaps the clouds will blow away; perhaps we will have a little easier task, but there is no great hurry so we will just let it rest a month or two." That was immediately after the promise of June 6 was given in this house

Natural Resources-Mr. Geary


Charles A. Stewart: Would my
hon. friend permit a short statement? I do not wish to interrupt him, because I think he is eminently fair-


An hon. MEMBER:: You are taking up
his time.


Charles A. Stewart: In that case I will refrain, but I will say that what I had in mind was to ascertain whether or not these divergent interests could be reconciled, to be sure that the city of Winnipeg did not want this power, and to be sure that the Manitoba government-both mentioned by the hon. member who spoke before-were consulted.


George Reginald Geary: I will read this letter once more, and then the house may draw its conclusion from what the hon. minister has said and what I say. The letter reads as follows:
Ottawa, June 7, 1928.
Dear Mr. Bracken,
I have your letter of the 31st ultimo re the Seven Sisters falls lease, together with the memorandum of statements made in your legislature about the matter. As the matter is one that has created a great deal of interest in Manitoba and last night was made the matter of comment in the house by the hon. Mr. Bennett and, in view of the fact that delay of a. momth or so will not injure the prospects of this development, I think it wise on my part to delay the issuing of the license for that time.	'
However, I note you have not changed your position from that taken in your former letter.
Yours,
Charles Stewart.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the whole method of dealing with these matters has been wrong, and that we should be on the safe side in respect of an important matter like water powers by first obtaining the judgment of this house. The right hon. the Prime Minister said that the Navigable Waters Protection Act contained a provision which permitted the annulment of any permit issued under that act. Such a provision stands in the face of the men who have put money into an enterprise, who obtain a permit from the department and they are always faced with the fact that such permit may be annnulled ten years afterwards, but the whole thing is so unfair that it has never been acted upon and I cannot imagine a case where it would be acted upon. I intend to move an amendment whereby such important matters shall be returned to the house for its ratification before they go into effect. The Minister of the Interior did not think that a delay of a month or so would make any difference in a matter of this kind, indeed I submit it will not make any difference if there is a delay of
six months or a year until such matters are ratified by the parliament of Canada. No harm will be done but only good, because the people will see how these major resources, these water powers, are being dealt with by the government of the day. We feel that the provision proposed to be inserted tin the Navigable Waters Protection Act should properly be in that act. I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that we cannot clog up the business in this house by passing on every little transaction. We do not insist that every homestead and that sort of thing should be returned to this house to get the ratification of parliament, and until that ratification had been given should have no effect. I do not think that is necessary, and in that regard I think the resolution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) goes too far, although the principle is good if applied in the proper way. When a water-power site like this one is given away it is diverting from the people of the country their rightful heritage. It is the natural run of water as nature left it and no private person should have that to the exclusion of benefits which should accrue to the people. We could split the resolution at that point, and I propose to move an amendment which will have that effect.
I judge from the utterances of the Prime Minister that we are on the eve of seeing a permit granted to the Beauharnois people. He said that the engineers must certify that any development will not interfere with navigation. Before we finished the session last year we had a discussion on the St. Lawrence waterway, and this much came from that discussion: that we must consult the premiers of the two provinces concerned, Quebec and Ontario, and we must seek to have reconciled the conflicting views of the engineers in regard to the development. These engineers have not met; they have not reconciled those conflicting views, and in the absence of such reconciliation, and in the absence of those engineers saying the development can be proceeded with, I think we are making a grave error in doing anything with the power sites on the St. Lawrence river until a full agreement has been arrived at by the engineers. These matters should be settled with regard to the whole stretch from lake Ontario to Montreal before we attempt to interfere with one part of it. To my mind, it will only spell disaster to deal with it piecemeal; to my mind there is no surer way of ruining the St. Lawrence as a navigation proposition than to deal with one
366	_	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Point of Order
part of it now and close the matter, so to speak, for all time to come. We will have a very difficult time trying to fit navigation into the proposed development of water power.
Feeling as I do about the resolution, I desire to move an amendment to it. I have attempted to follow in this amendment the reasoning which induced Your Honour to declare the amendment of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) out of order. This is a relevant amendment and one which follows very closely the subject matter of the resolution that is before the house. I, therefore, move:
That all the words in the motion after the word "house" be struck out and the following substituted therefor :
The present method of disposing of the water-powers which form part of the natural resources under the control of the federal government is unsatisfactory, and that the whole question of the disposal of such water-powers should be referred to a committee of this house for inquiry and report.


James Layton Ralston: I rise to a point of order. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the so-called amendment is not in fact an amendment at all; it is a new motion which the hon. member is endeavouring to get before this house, and of which he has given this house no notice whatever and in connection with which hon. members have had no time to form an opinion. The resolution to which this is alleged to be an amendment is one which has to do with all natural resources; this amendment is confined to water-powers. It is not an amendment within the terms of the rules of the house. If the resolution now before this house should be defeated there would still be an opportunity to move the resolution which is now the subject of the amendment. The very object of having matters come up by way of an amendment is that the whole matter may be disposed of and there will not be two debates on the same thing. I submit that this is a new motion and does not come within the relevancy of the rules and, therefore, it should not be put to the house.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I am within the judgment of the house when I say that if this amendment is out of order as applied to this motion, it is impossible to draft an amendment to a motion. The opposition have rights in this matter and we intend to insist upon them. The motion deals with all natural resources in Canada. The amendment seeks to limit it to a single natural resource. If a proposal comes before the house to build a hundred miles of railway, an amendment may come before it to limit the proposal to

seventy-five miles of railway. It is merely limiting the scope of the original question. The whole subject of the amendment deals with the subject of the motion, and if the amendment is out of order, I submit it is impossible to amend any motion moved in the house.


Charles A. Stewart: Might we be accorded the courtesy of being given a copy of the amendment? No one on this side of the house has one and it is rather a strange procedure that a motion of this character should be made without our being given an opportunity to see it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Might I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to another feature which I deem of some importance? The acting leader of the opposition (tMr. Guthrie) discussed the amendment from the point of view of reducing, as the amendment seeks to do, the application of the resolution from natural resources as a whole to certain natural resources, and he argued that that proposed 1 eduction would be a proper amendment. Even if that were so, the amendment seeks also to change absolutely the intention of the resolution. The intention of the resolution is quite clear; it is to prevent any disposition of any natural resource until such disposition is ratified by parliament. The amendment of the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) deals only with some natural resources, but in addition it seeks to have the matter examined by a committee of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will be the person who will say yes or no. Hon. gentlemen opposite have no more the determining of this point than I have, and they might at least do me the courtesy of permitting me to make my argument in peace. The amendment is in effect a direct negative to the original resolution because the latter seeks to lay down a definite principle that natural resources shall not be alienated save by the vote of parliament. The amendment negatives that completely, and says merely that the matter of disposition of water-power -I believe that is it; I was not supplied with a copy-shall be made the subject of investi* gation by a committee of the house. It is a direct negative to the motion before us.


Edward Joseph Garland: With reference to just one .point raised by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), I understand he contends that because it is now proposed to submit a part of the original resolution to a committee, the amendment is therefore out

Natural Resources-Point oj Order
of order, and in effect, a negative of the original motion. The hon, gentleman knows very well it is a common practice on the part of the house to pass upon and accept references of motions placed before it for decision to a committee without expressing itself upon the motions. I take it that the amendment is for the purpose, first of all, of circumscribing the original motion.


Charles Avery Dunning: It eliminates it. My hon. friend, I presume, has not a copy of the amendment?


Edward Joseph Garland: I said, as I understood it.


Charles Avery Dunning: As I read it, the amendment eliminates all of the original resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: The amendment as I understand it eliminates all the resources referred to excepting one. To that extent it has narrowed the scope of the original motion down to dealing with one natural resource alone. It submits that this one resource and the questions contingent thereupon shall be referred to a committee. I have in my hands the rules of the house with respect to questions of -that kind. As I understand the rules, one may amend a motion of this character in the form submitted by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). From my reading of the resolution it would appear to me that the amendment is quite in order.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend quote the rule?


Edward Joseph Garland: Section 395 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms reads:	[DOT]
It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed.
The amendment is quite in order in so far as that regulation goes.


Mr. CAHILL:: Will my hon. friend quote the amendment?


Edward Joseph Garland: I have heard it, and made some notations of its contents. I have not the amendment before me. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) is utp to his usual clever little tricks. He learned them so efficiently during that famous naval debate when he was one of the leaders of that gallant little ginger group of the Liberal party. I do not happen to have the amendment before me, but I am quite satisfied it is as I have stated it, and I am so informed by the mover.


Frank S. Cahill: Not as I heard it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Section 395 continues:
Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the point.


Edward Joseph Garland: I contend that the amendment is intelligible and is consistent with the original motion. All it does is to circumscribe the original motion, narrowdown its scope and then to suggest that it be referred by the house to a committee for further consideration.


Mr. CANNON:: The amendment, if I
understand it rightly, seeks two purposes, first, that the subject matter should be restricted to water-powers instead of covering all natural resources. Therefore there is no doubt it is a restriction on the original resolution. But the other object sought by the amendment is that the matter be referred to a special committee, and that is where I think the amendment is out of order because, according to Beauchesne, section 397:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.
The appointment of a special committee is evidently a motion which needs notice.


Robert James Manion: I have listened with a
good deal of interest to the arguments regarding this amendment. I also listened with a good dleal of interest to the argument regarding the other amendment. The other amendment moved by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) was complained of because it was too large; because it went too far. This one is complained of because it is too small; because it does does not go far enough. I do not know how we can satisfy our hon. friend across the way. They also complain that they were not supplied with copies of the amendment. They have two or three copies over there and their arguments are not very strong.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) says that this is a negative of the motion. It is nothing of the sort; it is a positive of the motion in a concentrated form. One thing we must remember regarding our whole parliamentary institutions is the spirit of a motion submitted to the house. The whole spirit of the speech made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) was a complaint regarding the Seven Sisters falls. The amendment distinctly deals with
568	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Point of Order
that complaint; it concentrates upon the one fact dealt with by the hon. member who introduced the original resolution. I think we have absolutely boiled the resolution down to what it really deals with, and I submit that if there is a possibility of moving an amendment that would apply to this resolution at all, that amendment is now before the house.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Might I say a word in
answer to my hon. friend from Fort Willian (Mr. Manion)? The motion moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), as it appears on the order paper, 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 whole discussion that has taken place in regard to this resolution is as to whether or not the supreme power of parliament should be invoked in a matter of this kind- not the question of submitting it to a committee-


Hugh Guthrie: That will be discussed
hereafter.


John Campbell Elliott: -but the question whether parliament should pass on the alienation of some of the natural resources.


Robert James Manion: And parliament does all
its work by committees.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
will allow me. I would quite agree with what has been said by the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) if the present amendment said that the present method was unsatisfactory, and that the disposal of water-powers, not the natural resources, but part of the natural resources, should not be effective until ratified by parliament. But that is not what it says. It takes an entirely different tack from that pursued during the whole course of this discussion, and instead of saying, "until ratified by parliament," it goes back to the other amendment which was proposed before, and which was ruled out of order, and says, "until passed upon by a committee of parliament." In other words, it is not part of the original resolution, and, under paragraph 397, I submit that it is entirely out of order in the same way that the other amendment was.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to direct the attention of Your Honour and of the house to two rules found in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. First, I would

draw attention to section 422, which deals with the question of relevancy, and reads as follows:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
I pause to point out that the amendment deals with the natural resources, limited in this case to water-powers, whereas the main motion deals with the natural resources, without any definition as to which natural resources are referred to.
I now ask your Honour to turn to section 406, which deals with the matter referred to by previous speakers, and reads as follows:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration, must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the house an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question. This may be effected by moving to omit all the w'ords of the question after the first word, "That", and to substitute in their place other w'ords of a different import. In that case the debate that follow's is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
Now I bring to the attention of Your Honour this significant fact; the debate up to this time has intimated, I think, to all who have followed it that some hon. gentlemen find themselves in sympathy with the general principle of the main motion, but they cannot follow it in its entirety as they consider it goes too far and is too sweeping, and so my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) has suggested an amendment which will meet, in his opinion, the views of those who are unable to follow the original motion in its entirety; but he has left sufficient of the original motion to make his amendment a technical amendment within the rules of the house. He has strictly observed the rule as to relevancy, as he deals with one section of the natural resources without dealing with them all, and he has met the objection of certain hon. gentlemen and submitted to them an alternative proposition by inviting them to refer this matter to a committee of the house for further study, rather than conferring upon parliament the rather extended powers called for in the original motion. Under the rules, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the amendment is strictly in order.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I desire to say a word
on the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish that the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), the Minister of National

Natural Resources-Point oj Order
Defence (Mr. Ralston), and otter ton. gentlemen would consider tteir remarks in Hansard to-morrow before ttey attempt to make ttis touse appear ridiculous before the country. If there ever was an amendment that was peculiarly and appropriately an amendment within all the rules of parliament, it is this one that has been submitted by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary). It is absurd for the Minister of Railways to say that this is a mere negative. He understands the English language. It is not a negative motion. It does not take away from the government the poweT to deal with this matter after it has been referred to a committee-not at all. It is a proper amendment within every rule for the moving of amendments. My hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) says that there must be notice-notice with respect to a matter that has been debated in the house for two whole days! Suppose the government side of the house proposed a reference to a committee in a matter that had been considered by the house for two whole days; would any hon. gentleman say that such a proposal would be out of order?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is constantly being
done.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: It is being done all the time, here, and in every other deliberative
assembly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was done this session in connection with the narcotic drug bill.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will not say I would
like the government to do it, but I ask this government, sitting on the government benches in control of the procedure of this house to consider well before they rule this amendment out of order, and let the people of Canada judge-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The Minister of Railways is good on the low notes when it comes to interrupting.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member (Mr. Ryckman) is not discussing the point of order before the Chair.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I am discussing the
point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I am pointing out the dilemma in which the government will be placed if the ruling of Your Honour should by any possible chance be against this amendment being an appropriate amendment to be considered by this house.


Mr. POWER:: I rise to another point of
order, Mr. Speaker, and that is that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr Ryckman) has insinuated in his remarks that you will do something which is contrary to the public interest. He has challenged, not the government, not the people on this side of the house, but you, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Charles Gavan Power: -to give a decision on a
point of order raised in this house. It is for Your Honour to give the decision, and not for members sitting on this side of the house or on
that.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Does any other hon. gentleman wish to speak to the point of order? The motion 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.
To which has been moved the following amendment:
That all the words in the motion after the word "house" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the present method of disposing of the water powers which form part of the natural resources under the control of the federal government is unsatisfactory, and that the whole question of the disposal of such water powers should be referred to a committee of this house for inquiry and report."
As has been pointed out during this discussion, the motion seeks to provide that any disposition of the natural resources
shall not be effective until ratified by parliament.
While the amendment proposes, that
disposal of such water powers should be referred to a committee of this house for inquiry and report.
At page 127 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms I find the author in paragraph 396 comments on standing order 48 as follows:
An amendment on a question must not be inconsistent with a previous decision on the same question given at the same stage of any bill or matter.
And in the following paragraph he points out very definitely, as referred to by the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon), that:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.
In my opinion the latter part of the amendment asking that this matter be referred to a committee contravenes section 397.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Why?
570	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Point oj Order


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: What about 406?


John Frederick Johnston: No matter can be referred to a committee of this house except on motion, after notice and certainly there has been no such notice given. Consequently under this rule I am forced to declare the amendment out of order.


Hugh Guthrie: I appeal from the ruling
of the chair.
Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair put the question as follows:
Mr. Woodsworth moves:
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.
t To which Mr. Geary moves in amendment:
That all the words in the motion after the word "house" be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"the present method of disposing of the water-powers which form part of the natural resources under the control of the federal government is unsatisfactory, and that the whole question of the disposal of such water-powers should be referred to a committee of this house for inquiry and report".
Whereupon the Speaker ruled the amendment out of order on the well known principle that:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice. Beauehesne, standing order 48, paragraph 39f.
Thereupon Mr. Guthrie appealed from the Speaker's ruling. Shall the Speaker's ruling be sustained?


Mr GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, I beg to
move, seconded by Mr. Boys:
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".


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: I stated the other day the reason why I could not support the motion as moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). That reason I can put in a very few words. The motion declares:
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.
I said I could not vote for that motion because that would be accepting on my part the proposition that these natural resources were under the control of the federal government, and I did not think that they were. The amendment substitutes for "natural resources" the words "water-powers", and if that were not qualified I could not vote even for the amendment. But the amendment proposes that no disposition of water-powers under the control of the federal government shall be effective until ratified by parliament, and I am sure that those who have a commendable mental acuteness will appreciate the fact-and it is a fact-that there are certain water-powers on navigable streams, such as the St. Lawrence, which are more or less under the control of the federal government. For that reason I shall support the amendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Since this amendment has
been made to my motion and I shall have no opportunity of discussing the subject further unless the amendment is voted down, which I hope will not be the case, I should like to refer now to a few matters that have come up during the debate. I shall vote in favour of the amendment, not because it gives all that I wanted, for I was laying down a general principle, but because it is in line with that principle, and sometimes one must take half a loaf if one cannot have a whole loaf. The Minister of the Interior the other day tried to sidetrack the discussion which has been going on by saying that this was a matter-


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I would ask hon. members behind the curtains to be silent. 1 cannot hear the hon. member although he has a very powerful voice.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was saying that
the Minister of the Interior attempted to sidetrack the real issue by suggesting that my resolution and my speech had to do entirely with the question of public versus private ownership. I would point out that the resolution pre-supposes grants to private individuals or corporations, and I think the amendment may be taken to pre-suppose similar grants. The fact is that the general policy of public versus private ownership is not involved in my resolution. Personally I am in favour of public ownership, but I say that question is not directly involved in the resolution. The purport of the resolution is to insist that natural resources shall not be alienated merely by order in council, without ratification by parliament. The minister went on to suggest that the contract was a good one; again I say that was not the point at issue. I will admit that the contract has some good features, but the point is that nothing of this kind should be done merely by order in council, especially in this case, the matter should have been submitted to parliament.
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. Even then these seven were simply informed that the government had concluded an agreement with the Manitoba government whereby the understanding with us could not be carried out. Is that consultation?
Then again the minister stated to the house very definitely, in answer to the leader of the opposition, that he would take no action. In view of what he wrote the next day I wonder whether any member of this house can say he intended to carry out that assurance. The minister immediately sat down and wrote that the original undertaking, on which apparently he had set his heart, would not be impaired in any way. In order to have it perfectly clear, let me quote the letter from Mr. Stew'art to Mr. Bracken:
As the matter is one that has created a great deal of interest in Manitoba and last night
572	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Woodsworth
*was made the matter of comment in the house by the Hon. Mr. Bennett, and in view of the fact that delay of a month or so will not injure the prospects of this development

On which apparently the minister had set his heart.
-I think it wise on my part to delay the issuing of the license for that time.


Charles A. Stewart: I rise to a point of order. I must object to my hon. friend reading words into letters written by me which are not there. I emphatically deny the words used by my hon. friend. I have no objection to his reading the strict text of the letter, but I object to his interjecting words in the hope that they will appear in Hansard as part of the letter itself.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have no desire
that anything will appear in Hansard as part of the letter which is not there; I merely put in an interjection, as we often do. The exact statement of the minister was as follows:
.	.	. delay of a mouth or so will not injure
the prospects of this development	
That was written one day after he had given a solemn assurance that no action would be taken.


Charles A. Stewart: I must object again; I gave no solemn assurance. My hon. friend persists in using that word, and I object.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very well; let me
read Mr. Stewart's statement from Hansard:
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. I think I may assure my hon. friend of that.
Those are the exact words of the minister, and he will not deny them. Further than that, I suggest that this is not the first time the minister has issued a statement not in harmony with the facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Let me note the
situation which existed in Winnipeg. It was suspected by some of the members of the local legislature that this grant was to be made to a private corporation; friends of mine in the local legislature wrote and asked us to make inquiries here. We did make inquiries in this house concerning the matter, and now let me read what Mr. Stewart telegraphed to Mr. Bracken on February 6:
No truth in report that Winnipeg Electric Railway Company is urging federal government for lease to develop Seven Sisters falls. Company's application was dated June 7, 1927, as

to which your government has knowledge. Company has not submitted any further request for action in respect to this application. Mr. Johnston expects to reach AVinnipeg Monday morning in accordance -with your request.
Let me direct particular attention to one sentence contained in that telegram:	"Company has not submitted any further request for action in respect to this application." Yet what do we find? I turn over the correspondence as laid on the table and find that on August 7, one month later than the application, E. Anderson sent information with regard to the incorporation of the Northwestern Power Company Limited. He said:
It is in the name of this company that we desire to have the priority permit issued in respect of the Seven Sisters development.
A month later than the application we have this letter written by Mr. Anderson to the department.


James Layton Ralston: Will my hon. friend read it all? It would be much better to have it all on record.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The file was given another member of this house to-day and has not been returned to me.


James Layton Ralston: Then will my hon. friend repeat the date?


James Shaver Woodsworth: August 7,	1927.
Then I go on three months, to October 28, under which date Mr. E. Anderson, counsel for the company, writes to Mr. Johnston of the department protesting against the granting of homestead rights in the vicinity of the Seven Sisters falls because it might interfere with power development. It is evidently taken for granted that this development will go through, and he writes that the company should be protected in that regard. Then I turn over the file again to November 18, a month later, when I find certain suggestions made by Mr. Anderson to Mr. Johnston that the settlers in the district near the Seven Sisters power site should not put improvements on the land as otherwise I suppose there would be added expenditures. There may be other letters, but I noted only these in the hurry of this morning. The minister has this to say on November 18:
The company's application was dated 7th June, 1927. The company has not submitted any further request for action in respect to its application.
There is request after request, and the whole tenor of the correspondence shows that the scheme is taken for granted as between the department here and the Winnipeg Elec-

Natural Resources-Mr. Woodsworth
trie Railway company. It is very significant that the only letter I have following the last one read is dated March 21, when Mr. Anderson announces that an agreement had been reached with the provincial government and arranges for a meeting with the department.


Charles A. Stewart: During
that whole period the Manitoba government had priority in connection with that lease.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I recognize that.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no doubt that letters were passing back and forth until Mr. Bracken refused that lease.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there any record
of that?


Charles A. Stewart: I have
given my solemn word to this house at least
a dozen times.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I challenged a
solemn assurance the minister gave in another connection.
Some 'hon. MEMBERS:	Order, order.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, may we
have a ruling on that?


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member must
accept the word given by one of his colleagues.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Am I permitted
to read the records as laid on the table?


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I was reading the
record.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister distinctly stated on February 6 that after June 7 the company had not submitted any further request for action in respect to its application, but after that date, on August 7, we find a further request; on October 28 we find still another request; and on November 18 we find further requests with regard to this application. I leave the record to speak for itself.
The government is a trustee, I take it, of these natural resources, including these water-powers. Although the Manitoba government had no authority to grant a lease without submitting the proposal to parliament, this government was willing, on the strength of the provincial order in council, to turn over to a private company properties estimated at a value of $28,000,000. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Thor-son) has dealt very adequately with this phase of the question. It is considered necessary that before the natural resources are finally turned over there should be ratification by this parliament and also by the parliament of Manitoba.


James Allison Glen: If the province of Manitoba,
which has not as yet obtained its natural resources, approved in the legislature of the granting of a power site lease to a private company, would the hon. member support that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think the question can be answered in the words of the member for Marquette (Mr. Glen):
"We have said everything we can say," said Mr. J. Allison Glen, M.P., Marquette, when advised of the action of the cabinet at Ottawa. "We are disatisfied, of course. We took the stand that it was too important a matter to put through by private agreement without consulting the representatives of the people. The proper place to have the issue discussed was on the floor of the legislature. If Mr. Bracken chooses to adopt some other course, that is his responsibility. The federal members who opposed the deal considered they had some responsibility and believing the agreement was not in the best interests of the people they registered their opposition. There is nothing more to be said just now."


James Allison Glen: The hon. member has not answered my question. I asked the hon. member if he would have any objection to the legislature of Manitoba approving of the granting of a lease to a private company?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Once the natural resources are formally turned over the legislature of Manitoba is supreme.


James Allison Glen: That is not an answer to my question. The amendment now before the house says that the disposal of power sites shall be subject to ratification by this parliament. Would the hon. member say that the legislature of Manitoba has no right to grant a lease to a private company without that lease being ratified by this parliament?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would say that the resolution says what it means. Whatever is within the jurisdiction of the Dominion should come before this parliament; what is not within the jurisidiction naturally does not come before it.


James Allison Glen: That is not an answer to my question.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member mentioned a figure of $28,000,000.
574	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Woodsworth


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was the estimated value.


John Livingstone Brown: Would he tell us how that estimate has been arrived at?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the settlement of this great question of the natural resources of Manitoba which has occupied this country for well on to fifty years should not have been settled in a few weeks in the way it was, by order in council; an order in council on the part of the province and an order in council on the part of the Dominion. They did not dare to bring this matter before the legislature of Manitoba.
The Prime Minister said that this government did not advise. I wonder what we can call it other than advice, at least with regard to the action on the part of the department with regard to this whole matter. Anyone who has looked over the correspondence cannot but see that the deputy minister of the Department of the Interior definitely allied himself with the private bodies in order that the development should be done under a private company. We are told there was no advice, but that is the only conclusion that can be arrived at by reading the correspondence.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the hon. member make the statement that my deputy minister, Mr. Cory, is allied with the private interests?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I meant the water-powers branch. The correspondence between the private company and the water-powers branch indicates very clearly that that branch was desirous of giving this development to the private company. I did not intend to mention the deputy minister.
In my speech introducing the resolution, I asked a question with regard to the recovery of this valuable water-power. I would suggest, without discussing matters that are now under investigation in Winnipeg, that enough has already come to light in Winnipeg to show corrupt practices, and it seems to me that this should invalidate the lease. We have had no word whatever from the Minister of the Interior, no word whatever from the Prime Minister, with regard to this matter. If these water-powers have been acquired on what are more or less false pretences; if there has been manipulation behind the scenes; if there have been misrepresentations, it would be an outrage that any company could secure this water-power by order in council and then

that it should be impossible for us to recover. I do not think the people of Canada will tolerate that kind of thing.
I come to the resolution as I prepared it. I prepared it in all good faith, but I find that the discussion has taken a very broad turn. We have had the whole of the natural resources question discussed from half a dozen different angles. The Prime Minister took advantage of this occasion to give a most important pronouncement with regard to the way in which the government proposed to deal with the natural resources. This all arose out of th'g little resolution of mine. The purport of the resolution is clear. Even the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) is, I think, rather mistaken in his criticism. The scope of the resolution is limited to those natural resources which are under the control of the federal parliament. If, as he believes, the lands or the water-powers are not under the control or, if you like, the administrative control of the government, then the resolution does not mean anything; it will not do any harm. But we all know, as a matter of fact, wherever the ownership may have been, it is the Dominion government which has been charged with the administrative control. Hence so far as the form is concerned I think anyone could vote for the resolution.
The Prime Minister, in attempting to answer my serious argument, descended to ridicule it. It seems to me that is hardly worthy of the Prime Minister. In a similar way, the other day he undertook to anticipate a resolution placed on the order paper by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and to ridicule that resolution, and, in the ridiculing of it to misrepresent it and thus prejudice the house against its proposals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take exception to my hon. friend's remark. I was not attempting to ridicule any motion. I was pointing out what literally in the matter of expense would be involved if the terms of a certain resolution were carried out. I was not casting any ridicule upon it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister to-day brought in some big books and in a childish way-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think I am using a parliamentary expression. He held up a great pile of books and said that, if my resolution passed, all the details in these books would have to come before the house. When I made this motion I expressly stated that, as a matter of course, all the small items would, as they are now, be laid on the table

Natural Resources-Mr. Glen
by the Minister of the Interior and it would be only in an exceptional case that objection would be taken. As I pointed out in my first speech, in theory not a dollar of public money can be expended without the sanction of the house. I hold in my hands, following the childish gesture of the Prime Minister, the report of the Auditor General containing, I suppose, thousands or tens of thousands of items of individual expenditures. One might say it would be absolutely absurd to have parliament pass on all these, yet in passing the estimates our theory is that we do consider every dollar that is spent by the government of the country. If it is possible to review thousands of items in this way, I see nothing inherently impossible in having these estimates laid on the table even in the case of homesteads and leases. On these small transactions there would be no discussion whatever; they would be passed en bloc as we have been passing even divorce bills. They would be passed as a matter of course, but at the same time the house would be given an opportunity to check anything that was not in the public interest.
We were told that even in the case of the St. Lawrence waterways it would be very difficult to secure the revocation of the license. We are told, with regard to the Seven Sisters falls, that already vested interests have been created and that it would be extremely difficult for the government to cancel the license. I know there is that difficulty. Perhaps it is put forward as being greater than it really is, but I want to obviate a difficulty of that kind by insisting that until parliament finally passes on the matter, there is no vested interest on the part of anyone. I would say: Let the government go on with its negotiations; let it call in its experts; let it work out the agreements and let it tentatively give licenses or contracts, but let everj' licensee know that that license must come for review before this house. In view of the tens of millions of dollars of the natural resources of this country which have been alienated during past years without any sanction from parliament, I urge in all seriousness that we ought to take steps now to insure that our natural resources are safeguarded. In discussing the resolution, I used the disposal of the Seven Sisters falls as an illustration. I did not know that the whole of the discussion was going to centre on the Seven Sisters falls; but as I stated frankly, it was the manner in which that lease was granted and the subsequent events that led me to put this resolution on the order paper.
I accept the amendment and will gladly vote for it, and I hope that many members
on the government side will do the same. I know this is expecting a good deal when there has been party feeling aroused by this discussion. By this resolution I did not intend to introduce a vote of censure of the government. If that vote of censure is introduced in the house, it ought to stand by itself. If I had intended a vote of censure of the government I would have brought in a vote of censure. I did not intend the resolution as such; I put it on the order paper months ago, and it came up at this time simply in the regular course. But in view of the growing public interest in matters of this kind, it seems to me that many members on the Liberal side as well as members of the opposition could well afford to subscribe to what I regard as a fundamentally sound proposition-and I limit it to the proposal of the amendment-that the vast water-powers of this country that are so essential to its future development ought not to be left entirely in the hands of any party government. I would be as loath to leave them in the hands of the Conservative party as I am to leave them in the hands of the Liberal party. Now that the Conservative party to-night, owing to a rather curious development of events, are willing to vote for a great principle of this kind, I hope it will not be defeated bj' the so-called Liberal party of Canada.


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to discuss any further the resolution before the house, but in view of the extraordinarily heated remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) I feel that I must follow on the remarks I made this afternoon. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that he did not import into this discussion the question of the Seven Sisters power site.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, no. That is
a misunderstanding.


James Allison Glen: He says that he did not
understand that the discussion would centre around the Seven Sisters falls power site; I think those were his words. But not a man in the house spoke of the Seven Sisters site until after the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had mentioned it. The whole of his argument was a condemnation of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) for the action he took in that connection. He spoke in the first instance, when introducing his resolution, of the domination of the financial interests particularly with regard to power, and he proposed to make that the basis of his argument, but afterwards he departed al-

Natural Resources-Mr. Glen
together from that lino and came to the question of the disposal of the Seven Sisters falls site as a horrible illustration of his argument. I have entire sympathy, as I said this afternoon, with all that he said with regard to the domination of the financial interests in this country, but I am not prepared to accept the . argument he submits, namely, that the question of the disposal of the Seven Sisters site should determine my attitude in the vote that is about to take place on the amendment.
I asked the hon. member to answer a question; he has not yet done so, but I think the question is very relevant to this discussion. I asked *whether in the event of the legislature of Manitoba, or Saskatchewan or Alberta, if you will, passing a resolution approving of the granting of a power site to any private individual or corporation within the province, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would in those circumstances-the representatives of the people having expressed their will through a resolution of the legislature- say that the province had no right to request the Dominion government to grant that lease. There wTas no answer from the hon. member, although both in this house and on platforms throughout the country-I have no particular occasion in mind, but I think I do him no injustice when I say this-he has always stood for the autonomy of the provincial legislature. Yet in this house to-night he is asking hon. members to support an amendment which would make the granting of the water-powers of the different provinces subject to ratification by this parliament, and only then would the disposition of those water-powers become effective.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. Read the
amendment.


James Allison Glen: I do not think that is an
incorrect statement. The amendment, if it means anything, means that the disposition of the water-power sites in any province shall not be effective until ratified by parliament.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What control has this parliament over the water-powers of the province of Quebec, for instance?


James Allison Glen: I am very much concerned
with the province of Manitoba, and with the three prairie provinces generally, which have not yet got their natural resources.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. gentleman has just made the statement that my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre wants to interfere in the granting of the leases by the different provinces in Canada, and I am simply testing his statement.


James Allison Glen: If the hon. gentleman had
listened to my argument, it was this: Under the amendment, the Dominion of Canada would have control over the power sites in this Dominion irrespective of the wishes of the provincial legislatures in the three prairie provinces.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is not possible.


James Allison Glen: I shall endeavour to make my hon. friend understand that it is possible. Suppose that instead of having the Seven Sisters power site under discussion in the circumstances in which it is now before us, Premier Bracken had acceded to our request that the question Should be submitted to the provincial legislature, and that the provincial legislature, which is now sitting, had decided after open discussion that they would grant the lease of the Seven Sisters falls power site to the Winnipeg Electric Company, and in furtherance of that action had requested the Minister .of the Interior to accede to the granting of the lease. My question is, would the hon. member say that in those circumstances the Minister of the Interior would be justified in withholding what the people of the province of Manitoba claimed as their right, namely to dispose of their own natural resources? Would he fake that stand, in view of the undertaking given by the Dominion government at the Dominion-provincial conference, that pending the transfer of the natural resources the Dominion government would hold them at the wish of the provincial government? Yet the amendment says that no disposition of the water-powers shall take place until ratified by this parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes. They must not be given away by order in council, but by parliament.


James Allison Glen: The order in council was passed not by the Dominion government but by the provincial government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that the lease was granted by order in council passed by the federal government.


James Allison Glen: 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 acceded to that request, as they were bound to do.
The hon. member has been speaking of provincial autonomy. I would like to know

Natural Resources-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
what the members from Saskatchewan and Alberta have to say about this. I am informed that a number of leases have been granted, if not to individuals, to corporations within the province of Alberta, and these leases have been granted with the knowledge and consent of the premier of the province, and the same with regard to Saskatchewan. Will the members from these two provinces take the position that if this amendment carries, no lease the granting of which is asked for by the Premier of Alberta or the Premier of Saskatchewan shall be granted until it is ratified by this parliament? Will they, taking the position which the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) takes, that the Dominion is but the trustee and that the provinces are the beneficiaries of the natural resources, say that the beneficiaries have no right to say where the assets of their estate shall go?
The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) raises the question of the province of Quebec. I say that I am concerned with Manitoba. That is my first and -my only consideration just now, and I say that the province of Manitoba would be restricted by the terms of this amendment. It could not be otherwise, and for that reason I intend to oppose the amendment.


Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfort):: I
have not occupied the time of parliament during the session any more than my hon. friends across the way have, but I do intend to say a little to-night. Like most of the members I have been listening off and on to this discussion for two or three days, a discussion of a most extraordinary nature on a most extraordinary subject. Coming from western Canada I have been accustomed there to take pride in the growth of that part of the country, developed as it has been under the policies of successive federal governments, of disposing-alienating is the word that would be used to-day-of certain natural resources of those sections, which have existed there since the dawn of creation. Those lands were not worth twenty-eight million dollars, they were not worth a nickel, until men came in and brought them under cultivation. But, as I have said, we had become accustomed to the wonderful growth of that western country under the policy adopted, and adopted wisely, a generation or two ago by this parliament and adhered to during the intervening years. What was that policy? That the government of this country, under legislation passed by parliament, was empowered to alienate the resources of the prairie provinces, to give them to individuals, to lease or sell them to cor-7S594-37
porations, with the result that to-day that western country upholds the trade and financial credit of the Dominion in the markets of the world. And yet the policy under which that tremendous development has taken place is attacked to-night by the original motion, and in a milder form by the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition.
Now, Mr. Speaker, had the policy which is now being proposed been in effect during the last thirty or forty years would western Canada to-day be supporting millions of people, would we have the great cities of Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Regina, would we see the railways strung across from the lakes and over the Rocky mountains to the Pacific seaboard? Such a development would have been impossible if every homestead application had to be passed on in this house, and if hon. members wanted to know why John Jones should get a certain quarter-section, and required that the application and all the correspondence and other papers relating thereto should be placed on the table of this house. But that is exactly what would have happened if the principle of this resolution had been in force. On the very next page to that containing the resolution now under discussion I find the following notice of motion for production of papers:
For a copy of 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.
This motion for a copy of documents relates, it will be noticed, to the sale of a section of land. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Campbell) wants to know all the details; but if that land and other resources had been given away you can imagine the number of inquiries that would appear on the order paper, and it is safe to assume that this house would find it very difficult to discharge its functions as a branch of parliament. The policy under which western Canada has been developed has been almost uniformly successful, experience has shown it to be wise, and it would be a sad state of affairs if it were displaced by the policy now proposed.
I remember the leader of the opposition speaking very feelingly about the officers of the Department of the Interior. I should like to pay a tribute to the department not only since the present minister has been in charge but since its inception. Since the prairie ' provinces began to grow settlers have looked to the Minister of the Interior and to the officers of his department as their friends.

578	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
They came into the country largely on the invitation of the department, and on the lands given to them they built their homes, and under all governments of whatever shade of politics generally speaking those people have received fair and reasonable treatment from the department. Why? Because the sole object of the department was to people those western plains and get them under cultivation. And yet this motion which has been debated for two days and the amendment now under consideration would change that policy and throw the work into the political arena.
I am quite sure hon. gentlemen opposite do not really mean that. The only reason I can suggest for their support of the amendment occurs to me from a statement made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) yesterday, when he told the house he could not support the resolution as worded, but apparently he and his friends are quite ready to support the amendment that no disposition of the water-power under the control of the federal government shall be effective until ratified by parliament. But there is no difference in the principle involved. If the water-powers in western Canada, for instance, are not rightfully under the control of the federal government that government could not dispose of them now. And if the lands and other resources still under the control of the federal government should not be disposed of by the Department of the Interior, I cannot see how the hon. member for Frontenac can justify his change of front. It is too subtle for my very ordinary intellect to grasp.
I should just like to point out what the passing of this resolution would mean. I admit that if the amendment passes it would not have all the effect that I am about to describe. The Department of the Interior disposes of scores of thousands of homesteads every year. Men go into the prairie provinces every year to hunt up new homes, to find new ways of making a living. Those people would have no assurance of title or other security until the proposed grant of their homesteads was brought before this parliament and disposed of. Well, a year or two ago some of us thought that the sessions of parliament lasted too long. Last session the rules were amended in order to shorten the length of time which hon. members have to spend in Ottawa, and I think there was very little difference of opinion in any part of the house as to the desirability of the changes then made. In the face of that change this proposal, which we have been discussing for two days, would throw on parliament the extra burdens that 
I have outlined. The department also disposes of timber lands. I am well aware that possibly a generation ago it was said that certain things in connection with the alienation of these resources were not altogether right. I do not know myself, I am simply stating what I have heard or read. Now, supposing someone like my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth)- of whose sincerity in this matter I am absolutely convinced; I am only questioning his judgment in the course he has taken-supposing, I say, some hon. member introduced a resolution that until this parliament ratified the disposition of any timber lands those resources could not be alienated by the Department of the Interior. What would have been the effect on the men who were depending for their living on the cutting of that timber?
Now, a new thought has struck me-does the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) interrupt?-the hon. gentleman who was so busy telling the house three years ago that the extremely hard conditions in his city had forced hundreds of working men to go out in the depths of the Canadian winter and pull grass off the mountain for fuel, and that those hard conditions were due to tariff reductions? If he has any interruptions to make I ask him to make them now.
There is a point in connection with this matter which I think the hon. member who pro-posed the resolution has overlooked. It is not asked that the disposition of lands shall be ratified by this house; it is proposed that it shall be ratified by parliament. Now, without saying anything derogatory, which would bring down on myself the wrath of the Chair, everyone knows that the other part of parliament, of which I must speak respectfully, has not always seen eye to eye with this house. Many times legislation passed by this house has received the cold shoulder in the other chamber, and now are we going to ask that no development shall be allowed in the western provinces, which, generally speaking, have been under the administration of the Dominion government- under the control of the Department of the Interior and to some extent of the Department of Fisheries-until the consent not only of this house but of the other also has been obtained? I think the thing is ridiculous, and as a western member I cannot support the proposition. Nor can I understand how anyone else can support it.
I was speaking a moment ago of timber lands. At the time when certain irregulari-

Natural Resources-Mr. McLean (Melfort)
ties were supposed to exist in the handling of timber, would anyone suggest that no timber should be sold until the sales slips should have been brought to parliament and O.K.'d by the members of this house and of the other as well, and duly ratified? The act was amended to some extent, the regulations were changed, and provision was made for the disposition of timber in such a way as would remove all fear of danger in the future.. The result is that the man who wishes to purchase timber from Dominion lands can now go to the nearest Dominion land office and obtain application forms, ot he may attend an auction sale and make his purchase. But in any event he is assured of security. Take, again, grazing lands. If the proposal of my hon. friends were to be adopted, and all grazing leases held had to be ratified by this parliament, many of the cattle would die of hunger in a hard winter; they would not have the gTass on the mountains to sustain them. The same principle applies to fishing.


Leslie Gordon Bell: If they were
Liberals they would get thistles.


Malcolm McLean: I am sorry I did not catch that.


An hon. MEMBER:: You didn't miss anything.


Malcolm McLean: I do not suppose I did. I am making a serious argument.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm McLean: I am glad to get at least that meed of praise from my hon. friends opposite.


Robert James Manion: It is not praise.


Malcolm McLean: In that case it must be what an hon. member suggested a little while ago-the loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind.


Robert James Manion: The vacant mind is over there.


Malcolm McLean: To proceed, if there are no more interruptions. The man who wanted a fishing license, according to this proposition, would have to come here and have his application ratified before he could engage in fishing, and the fishing season *would be past before he could make a catch; he could not feed the people of Montreal and Ottawa and other eastern cities with the delectable northern trout we get to-day. And what about minerals? The prospector goes 78594-374
into the north and files his mineral claims, but according to this resolution he would have to come here at great trouble and expense, only to be informed that parliament would have to be consulted before he could begin operations. At the present time under the regulations he may file his claim knowing that he is absolutely protected on his holding, provided he does certain things which are reasonable; when he does those things he is sure of getting title. But under the proposed arrangements he would have to wait until parliament gave him title.
There is another matter that has been discussed a good deal during the debate and that is the question of water-powers. There has been considerable criticism of the disposition of certain water-powers in Manitoba. Now, something like five per cent of the water-powers of Manitoba was alienated from the control of the Dominion and turned over on the recommendation of the province under an agreement between the province and the Dominion. For the past twenty years there has been a determined demand on the part of many people in the west to secure control of natural resources including water-powers. This government arrives at an agreement with another government-a provincial government-to turn over certain water-powers and that provincial government advises that something shall be done with a certain waterpower, a very insignificant percentage of the water-powers of Manitoba. The same water that flows over the Seven Sisters falls flows later into lake Winnipeg and out into the Nelson river where it forms a part of many millions of horse-power in that river. That is a tremendous river, draining a vast stretch of territory from the Rocky mountains on the west on to Hudson bay on the east, and from the northern United States, draining, up through the Red river of the north, through the Assiniboine, the waters of western Ontario, draining through the Winnipeg and other rivers in that district, all flowing finally into the Nelson river, representing millions upon millions of horse-power. Yet because the government of the province asks this government to dispose of a water-power site in a way which so far as we know is satisfactory to the provincial authorities, and in a way which they had a perfect right to suggest, we have engaged in this long debate in parliament. How does this affect the other provinces? I
580	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
assure you, Mr. Speaker, I should be derelict in my duty were I not merely to refrain from voting but to decline to protest against a proposal such as this, which would tie up the development of the province I represent. I have no desire to see a change made in the regulations which would compel any man who wishes to secure a water-power in northern Saskatchewan-to speak of the province I know best-to wait until the proposition had been considered at Ottawa and passed upon by this parliament. We have often heard, and the people throughout the country have heard, about the harm done new industries in the newer parts of the Dominion through the control which banking and financial interests exercise. It is said that it is impossible to develop industries in the newer parts of the country as they should be developed because the banks have their headquarters in the eastern cities, and an industry in western Canada may be retarded cn this account. I have heard it reported, with reference to an industry in Fort William-the constituency represented by my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Manion)-that it was difficult to obtain sufficient financial credit by reason of the control of funds by business men who happened to be directors or owners or representatives of similar industries located and already established in the east. Some hon. gentlemen may ask, what has that to do with the water-powers or the alienation of resources?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Malcolm McLean: I hear an hon. gentleman say "hear, hear," but he knows pretty well what bearing it has on the subject. He knows perfectly well that the financial men can check the growth of western business. I am not accusing them of doing so; I am merely stating that which has been said in this house many times as well as on the street. And if they can do that in connection with financial power they can do it just as well in connection with the development of natural resources. In Saskatchewan, in the constituency I represent, there is proceeding at the present moment one of the most wonderful winter operations ever tackled in Canada. Freight is being hauled from the town of The Pas, a distance of eighty-five or eighty-nine miles, on a railroad where a year ago, this day 1928, there was nothing but muskeg and rock over the greater part of that

eighty-five or eighty-nine miles. Courage, skill and industry last winter made it possible to lay steel over the muskeg, and this summer the steel was raised, the grade put in under it, and the rest of the road built. The result is that at this time development is taking place day and night, tractors hauling tremendous loads the rest of the distance from Flin Flon to the water-power site at Island falls. Ten tractors are hauling loads of some seventy tons apiece over a distance of from eighty to a hundred miles. They run on a twenty-four hour schedule, getting through with the material to build the dam at Island falls on the Churchill river. Now, Mr. Speaker, if anyone expects that I can conscientiously vote for a change in procedure which will make it impossible for such developments to proceed, I cannot agree with him.


An hon. MEMBER:: You were not expected to.


Malcolm McLean: I know the hon. member for Toronto does not ask me to agree with him, so we agree to disagree, and throughout the Dominion as a rule not many agree with what goes on in Toronto or with what emanates from there. I know my hon. friend will not feel too badly hurt over that, because I am sure he does not believe everything that comes from Toronto.
However, Mr. Speaker, I want to protest against the idea that a development of that kind should be held up until some one can come to parliament and have all that deal pawed over here for political reasons, by politicians-and I do not use the word disrespectfully, being one of that brotherhood myself. This would mean a tremendous delay, and it would discourage investors, financiers, industrialists, miners and prospectors from going into that country if they knew they would have to run the gauntlet of parliament before getting power with which to turn the wheels of industry.
This is what I say, Mr. Speaker, and it is the main part of my speech-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Malcolm McLean: -which, like good wine, I have saved for the last. I am not interested a particle in the disposition of Seven Sisters falls, except as an ordinary citizen of Canada, but the people of Manitoba

Natural Resources-
-Mr. McLean (Meljort)
are not children; they are grown up and the province is autonomous. I would remind hon. gentlemen opposite that a previous federal government fell on the question of the civil and autonomous rights of the people of Manitoba, who are well skilled in punishing governments with which they do not agree and in rewarding those with which they do agree. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite know that; their memory is not so short but that they remember what happened in 1914 and 1915, when the people of Manitoba took the direction of their affairs into their own hands. Because something happened in Manitoba which does not suit some hon. members of this house I do not believe there should be a complete change in the procedure under which western Canada was built up and developed.
Speaking for the province of Saskatchewan, I do not want to see any change in the law such as is proposed, until the people of Saskatchewan ask for it. Saskatchewan is quite capable of electing a legislature and selecting a government in which it has confidence; it has done so for twenty-five years, and when that government comes to Ottawa requesting this government to permit development of power on the Churchill river or some other river in a certain way, unless there is something palpably criminal on the face of it which would warrant this government in asking for time in which to consider the matter, I say that request should be granted. This is a question of constitutional rights which we are fighting to-day, and I protest against the idea that our people are children, without the full right and ability to govern themselves.
Now let me develop the argument in which I was engaged when I was interrupted by the applause of my hon. friends opposite. We sometimes hear that industries in that western country are hindered in their development by a lack of financial support due to the fact that men interested in the same kind of industries are on the boards of banks and other financial institutions in the east; so I think we are leaving ourselves open to the charge of hindering western industry which requires water-power or the use of other natural resources for its development. We will do that if we make them come to this hou?e and to the other house for approval of grants of this kind. We must remember that the other house was unkind enough-and I hope this is
not unparliamentary-to stop the development of western Canada six years ago on the question of the construction of necessary branch lines, and so held back people of that country from the proper development to which they were entitled. If the members of the other house had seen farmers hauling their grain thirty, forty to fifty miles to market in weather perhaps from thirty to fifty degrees below zero, I-do not think they would have taken that action. I appeal to my hon. friends in the southeast comer of the chamber as to whether or not these conditions have existed in the past in western Canada.
Now what about the prospector? Every once in a while I receive a resolution or a request from a prospectors' association in northern Manitoba or northern Saskatchewan asking me to make representations to the department, alleging that certain conditions are too harsh in one way or unsuitable m some other way. We must remember that these men go out in the winter time with their dogs and a limited amount of food; they can stay out only so long, and if the snow is too deep or the weather too severe they cannot do very much. However, they keep moving, locate their caches and so on, and in t e spring they come out before the ice goes. Then they must get together their summer outfits, after the breakup is complete. These men endure great hardships, and when they find something they come back to try to sel it to someone who will go in and develop the country as the Whitney people have gone into the Flin Flon area, where they are doing such good work: However, if these men were to be told, "Now, your option expires on a certain date and you may not be able to get power, because it is necessary to go to the parliament of Canada, and they may say you cannot have it," I submit it would make very difficult the dtevelopment of the mineral areas of western Canada. So through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask this house to vote down a resolution which would hinder such development and would not do any good. I can quite understand certain members of this house objecting to the way in which water-powers, lands, timber limits and so on have been handled in the past, but just because hon. gentlemen may not like the way I wear my hat or do my hair, no one would think of saying that the proper punishment would be to amputate me just behind the ears. So
5S2	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King
just because there may have been something in connection with the transfer of natural resources in Manitoba with which they disagree, I do not think we should change the whole system. I believe it is the duty, the right and the privilege of the people of Manitoba to deal with that question for themselves, and I ask this house not to do anything which will penalize the home makers of that western country. Do not let us make it harder for the lumberman who may want to buy timber from the government, with which other people may build houses, for the miners, the prospectors and others. Let us permit the people of Manitoba to do as they wish nith what is theirs, but leave the resources of Saskatchewan under the same administrat-tion they have had in the past. Let them remain under the federal government, acting through the Department of the Interior in consultation from time to time with the government of Saskatchewan, in order that the resources may be administered on behalf of all the people until they are transferred to the province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, when the
house entered upon the debate on the address hon. gentlemen opposite, through the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) spent some time in criticizing the government on the delay in the transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces. Since the present government came into office* we have been doing out utmost to hasten this transfer believing that the western provinces were justified in desiring the return of their resources at the earliest possible moment. What is the one reason above all others which has occasioned this desire on the part of the western provinces for the speedy transfer of their resources? Water-power to-day is coming to have a significance in industrial development which it has never had 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. What is the position being taken in this parliament this evening? The hon. the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie), who comes'from the province of Ontario which is

highly industrialized through the development of electric, power, introduces a motion which absolutely divides eastern and western Canada; which says in so many words that while the older provinces of Ontario and Quebec may have all the freedom they wish to develop their natural resources, and to develop their water-powers in particular, the western provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are not to be permitted to have any industrial development dependent upon electric energy developed from water-power until the particular plans and sites and all transactions incidental to the transfer of their water-powers and to their development are approved by this parliament.
Parliament is made up of two houses, the House of Commons and the Senate. Hon. gentlemen opposite still have a majority in the senate, and the industrial development of western Canada is to be made dependent upon the will of a Tory majority in the senate. That in effect is the result of the amendment-before this house at the present time. I am somewhat surprised that my hon. friend (Mr. Woodswoirth) who is a bit of a radical, is prepared to put his province in a position where its industrial development will depend upon ratification of the majority in the senate. The amendment reads as follows:
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.
That does not mean the water-powers in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario or British Columbia, but it does mean all of the water-powers in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, because those water-powers are under the control of this government pending their actual transfer to the western provinces. This government has entered into an agreement with the government of one of these western provinces, and one of the conditions of that agreement is that its natural resources, including its water-powers, are to be administered in accordance with the wishes of that province from the time the agreement was made until the province is actually in full possession and control of its resources. Is the spectacle not an amusing one for us to be asked by a member from that particular province, of all parts, to break that contract and all that is implied in it? This contract provides for the trans-

Natural Resources-Mr. Evans
fer of the control of all the resources, not only one particular resource. The Manitoba government stressed its desire to have all its resources administered in accordance with its own wishes, and so far as the resources were concerned I remember particular emphasis being laid in our conferences upon the effect the explorations in northern Manitoba today would be likely to have on future industrial development. A development such as we have not seen in Canada before may be expected in a very short time, in Alberta or Saskatchewan as well as in Manitoba, but as has been mentioned by the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. McLean, Melfort), industrial development is something that has to be proceeded with rapidly or it will in many cases fail altogether. What is true of Manitoba is equally true of Saskatchewan and Alberta. So far as the government is concerned we have made a contract, on behalf of the Dominion of Canada, with one of the provinces of the west, and we have promised to make similar contracts with the two other provinces. This government will not begin a great policy of transferring the natural resources by contractual agreement, a policy which tends to unite this country from coast to coast more firmly than ever, by breaking one contract at its very inception.
The most serious issue that can be raised in this country is the issue of provincial rights, and that question is raised the moment any province is told that it cannot do what it likes with its own but must wait for the ratification of this parliament. The transfer of the natural resources to the western provinces has been delayed for one reason, among others, namely, because the proposed agreement stipulated in effect that the provinces were to be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of the Dominion as far as their natural resources were concerned. Those words seemed to be fair enough, but it was alleged by the western provinces that they admitted of debate, and that there was doubt as to what they might mean. The province of Manitoba alleged that it might be necessary to get an interpretation as to their exact significance from the privy council. 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 be 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 of their governments and legislatures, not our parliament, to decide what is to be done.
I think we have discussed this question long enough. There are many arguments that might be urged, but I do submit that when we have such a great issue as the question of the rights of the provinces as against the Dominion raised in an amendment; when we have an issue created which tends to divide eastern Canada from western Canada; when we have an amendment which threatens to hold back the industrial development of a large part of this Dominion to which the rest of the Dominion is already widely indebted, we should not waste very much time in letting the country know where we stand in regard to it.
Mr. JOHN EVAN'S (Rosetown): While this debate has been a day out for the Seven Sister^. I do not think I am trespassing when I take a few minutes to present some views regarding natural resources in general. I took some notes while the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) was speaking the other day-


An hon. MEMBER:: Louder.


Mr. EVANS:: If hon. gentlemen would not talk so much I could be heard all right.
I was proceeding to say that the right hon. gentleman made some remarks the other day with reference to the fact that all parties and governments since confederation had played with the western provinces. I think it has been one of the most laughable farces that has ever taken place in this house to see one side accusing the other of delay and then of being in a hurry at the same time. I did not think they could blow hot and cold with the same breath as literally as they have. The hon. gentleman said that not only had the Liberals' offer of the natural resources been refused, but Mr. Meighen's offer of 1911 was also refused'. Mr. Meighen's offer could not

Natural Resources-Mr. Evans
be accepted, for several reasons. One of the reasons was that no accounting was to be made of all resources alienated during the years that they had been held by the Dominion government. The same restriction was to apply as has applied and this has been the reason for not handing over the resources since the time of confederation.
The Prime Minister also stated1 that the Dominion government was now willing to hand over these resources but that the provinces were not willing to accept the very generous offer. What was the generous offer? The most generous offer that has yet been made is that those provinces shall be given their natural resources and retain the present subsidy at the amount at which it stands today. Every province receives a subsidy, and if the provinces that have not their natural resources accept them on those conditions, those subsidies should be on a sliding scale in proportion to what the other provinces are receiving and according to population.
But I have yet to find out why those resources are not handed over and those provinces put in the same position as the other provinces of the Dominion. * Why should the Dominion government be in a position to make offers? Who took those resources; who usurped the right to hold them? Was it not the Dominion government itself? To illustrate that I might mention something that has just occurred to me. If I stole a man's purse- and according to the code of ethics which is bandied back and forth across the floor of the house that wrnuld be no crime on my part if I were strong enough to get away with it- if I stole a man's purse and during the time I had it in my possession I freely used whatever was in it, should I be the one to make the owner an offer as to the conditions upon which he should receive it back? That is how the Dominion government stand to-day in relation to those provinces, and yet they say: We are making a generous offer. As a member from Saskatchewan let me tell the Prime Minister to keep his generous offer.
Mention was made of negotiations with the provinces. The Prime Minister said that hon. gentlemen seem to think some sinister motive is at the bottom of the whole thing. I am not going to say that it is sinister, but there is a motive. Are the house and the country to forget the speech made by the hon. member for La,belle (Mr. Bourassa) in this chamber in January, 192S? Are the house and the country to forget that an official of the Dominion government was sent to Alberta to get Brownlee to agree to the provisions demanded by Quebec? There is a

motive. Why hide it? I am not saying this because I am a Protestant and not a Roman Catholic. I have no prejudice against Roman Catholicism.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Evans: Hon,, members may laugh, but I have none. I say, however, that when any province seeks by its religion and racial relationships to dominate politically the rest of the Dominion, I am going to rebel. Does Quebec send sixty-three or sixty-four members to this house every election only for the general good of Canada?


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Yes.


John Evans: I do not believe it.


Edward James Young: We do.


John Evans: We cannot accept the return of our resources with those restrictions. I have no prejudice against Roman Catholicism but I have against political domination by any one class or race in the Dominion, and until those restrictions are entirely removed from the acceptance of our resources, I am still going to rebel. I want to tell the Prime Minister that there have been two rebellions in western Canada. In 1870 Louis Riel was fighting for his own rights, for the rights of that territory, and I do not know, had I been there then, that I should not have been alongside of him.


Charles Gavan Power: I might suggest that the hon. member would have got into trouble with the organization to which he now belongs.


John Evans: I want to tell the hon. gentleman that no organization has ever had any strings on me.


Hewitt Bostock: May I suggest to hon. members that we are discussing the natural resources of Canada and not the Riel rebellion?


John Evans: I was endeavouring to answer an accusation of the hon. gentleman, and I want to tell him that no organization has ever had any strings on me. I intend to preserve my freedom for the rest of my life.
As regards another reference made by the Prime Minister, the reason for dealing with those provinces separately in this instance is the very same reason why those who governed us in the early days saw fit to divide those territories up into three provinces in order that they might deal with them separately. If Saskatchewan is to accept the

Precedence of Budget Debate
remainder of her public domain without an accounting for the alienated land of that province, the subsidy should be on a sliding scale according to population and in relation to what the other provinces are receiving.
To come more particularly to the resolution and the amendment, assuming that the Dominion Lands Act was not a usurpation and ultra vires of t'he British North America Act, I submit that the principle of the resolution should have been adopted when the Dominion Lands Act came into force, but I do not even admit that the Dominion government had the right to pass the Dominion Lands Act and to apply it to our resources during the last sixty years. But then, just as is the case to-day, those two provinces, Ontario and Quebec particularly, assumed the right to rule over the western part of Canada. It is time they abandoned that practice and that the western provinces be given their full autonomy. For many years past, organized agriculture has from time to time declared its views in this matter by adopting resolutions something in these words. I hold in my hand what is known as the farmers' platform, on which the whole Progressive party that occupied this part of the house after 1921 was elected. The resolution reads:	[DOT]
The council recommends that no more of the natural resources be alienated from the crown, but that these be brought into use only under short-term leases in which the interests of the public shall be properly safeguarded, and that such leases be granted only by public auction.
I am sure the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) will remember this resolution as well as some of the discussions which took place before the Canadian Council of Agriculture. More than that on many occasions my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown), as president, put this resolution before his own organization. I cannot understand the action of men to-day in dealing with this matter. The action of the Liberal party and of the Conservative party on this question has been a mystery to me for many, many years.


Charles Avery Dunning: Has not the hon. member also been a little mystified occasionally by the action of the Progressive party? I think he will admit that.


John Evans: The hon. gentleman can think that too if he likes. But whatever was the excuse in 1870 for the passing of the Dominion Lands Act, when responsible government was created in Rupert's Land and the northwest territory there was no need for the Dominion government to withhold those resources from their rightful owners. Had there been any
excuse even for that, surely when the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were created we should have been placed on an equal status with the rest of the Dominion. Why mince matters any longer? There is one faction on that side and one faction on this.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, March 1, 1929