1929-02-25

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That the provisions of standing order 65 under which no special committee may, without leave of the house, consist of more than fifteen members, be suspended in connection with the resolution passed by this house on February 22, appointing the special committee on the Dominion Elections Act, 1920.
He said:	I think twenty members were
put on that committee.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 39, respecting the Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Odette.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. F. KELLNER (Athabaska) moved the second reading of Bill No. 41, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. KELLNER:: This is a Canadian
Pacific railway bill providing for branch lines. I think every hon. member expected it to be brought down. It provides for their construction in the coming year.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second
time.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: That Bill No. 41. respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, be immediately referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, on the
grounds of urgency and pressing necessity, and that standing order No. 105 in relation thereto be suspended.


Mr. DUNNING:: I did not catch what the hon. member said.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the opposition) :: What was asked was that the bill
be referred immediately to the committee and not be delayed in consequence of having to be posted under the existing standing order 105. In view of the discussion that took place in the house the other evening I think the minister would be glad to have the bill referred to the committee immediately so that the whole matter may be before it for discussion of the pros and cons.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): With that explanation I have no objection, but because the hearing of matters of this kind involves the gathering together on the part of each of the great railway systems of a number of their officers, I have endeavoured, in cooperation with the chairman of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, to get some sort of a date in advance. I believe the arrangement now is-and the chairman of the committee can correct me if I am wrong- that the bills respecting the Canadian National will be considered at the Thursday meeting of the committee; that Thursday will be the Canadian National day, and that other matters before the committee will be taken up to-morrow morning. The position created by this motion will be that by Thursday the Canadian Pacific bill will also be in the hands of the committee and before it for consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Otherwise it would not
be?


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	How many miners were brought to Canada from England for the harvest last summer?
2.	How many of said miners are at present in Canada?
3.	How many of those who remained here are settled on the land?
4.	What was the cost to Canada of this experiment?


Mr. FORKE:: 1.	8,449 persons came to Canada under the harvester movement.
Questions

2.	Upwards of 2,000.
3.	No definite information.
4.	There was no outlay on the part of the government of Canada in connection with the harvester movement, except cooperation in placing them at harvest work. The British government and the transportation companies were responsible for transportation to Canada and for the return of those who went home.


HOME SEEKERS RATES
Mr. BOULANGER:: What was done to carry out the recommendations of the committee on Agriculture and Colonization in regard to granting reduced rates for the transport of Canadian settlers and with reference to the advantages which were to be given to sons of Canadian farmers haying a knowledge of agriculture in order to facilitate their settling on the land?


Mr. FORKE:: The report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization recommended on June 6, 1928, that " measures be taken to ascertain whether the railways will restore the homeseekers' rates in effect prior to the war, making such rates effective eastbound as well as westbound." Id accordance with this recommendation a letter, dated July 7, 1928, was addressed to the presidents of the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian National railways by the Deputy Minister of Immigration and Colonization, calling their attention to the recommendation of the select standing committee and inquiring if the railways would restore the homeseekers' rates. All the railways in Canada being concerned, the matter was referred by the presidents to the Canadian Passenger Association which subsequently replied as follows:-
*Referring to your letter of July 7th addressed to the presidents of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways quoting an extract from report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization advocating the restoration of home seekers' rates in effect prior to the war, making such rates effective east-bound as well as westbound.
As this is a matter that affects all Canadian railways to a more or less extent, it has been referred to the Canadian Passenger Association for consideration and reply.
Specially low fares for home seekers from eastern to western Canada were inaugurated, as you will probably recollect, many years ago when it was difficult to secure settlers for the prairie provinces and it was necessary from a national standpoint to encourage the movement in every way possible. At that time there was very little business and commercial travel oetween the east and west.
As the settlement of the western provinces ,/rogressed, business and commercial travel gradually developed and the home seekers' travel from eastern Canada steadily decreased. As the legitimate use of the fare gradually [Mr. Forke.l
diminished, the railways in order to protect their interests against the advantage being taken of the fare by business and commercial travel gradually raised the charge.
The increase in home seekers' fares has not been detrimental in so far as settlement of the west is concerned, inasmuch as the exceptionally ow harvest help fares authorized each year meet the requirements of the actual land seeker from eastern Canada far better than the home se -kers' excursion fares, which is evidenced by th fact that for a number of years the majority of those in eastern Canada who desir 'd to settle on the land in the west took advantage of these special harvest help fares. This gives them the advantage of working for farmers in the west and earning more than enough to pay their passage fares both ways, and those who decide to settle in the western n ovinces arrange to move their families at the time of the next harvest excursion, when tli v have their buildings and home under way air1 ready to receive them.
Further, we are of the opinion that present conditions in Canada are such as to make it inadvisable to unduly encourage removal of individuals and families from one province to another. All provinces have vacant land and are anxiously endeavouring to not only hold their present population but to secure new settlers. Certain of the provinces have even felt the drain caused by the harvesters' excursions and have made protest against the arrangement. Our records indicate that from fifteen to twenty per cent of the harvesters who go west each year do not return to the east and that the majority of those who do not return actually settle on the land.
After very careful consideration the railways are strongly of the opinion that it would not be in the general interest to make any reduction in the present so-called "homeseekers' fares".
The select standing committee also recommended, subject to the completion of satisfactory arrangements with governments of the provinces, that assistance equal to that given by the British government to British emigrant boys be extended by the government of Canada to the Canadian youth who are trained in agriculture. This is still the subject of negotiation with the provincial governments.


DISTRESS AMONGST WELSH MINERS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the attention of the government been called to the great distress in Wales among the miners and their families?
2.	Will the government consider some form of assistance towards their relief?
3.	What action will be taken, if any?
4.	What moneys have been voted since 1905 for relief in the British Empire and elsewhere towards sufferers from famine and disaster?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No official intimation has been received.
2 and 3. In cases of unemployment it has not been customary for one government to propose a grant for relief without an indica-

Questions
tion from the government of the country in question that such a course would be acceptable.
4. $806,736.72 has been paid since 1905 for relief in cases of sudden disaster and famine.


VANCOUVER ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. NEILL:: In view of the extensive developments on the west coast of Vancouver island, has the government in contemplation a more extensive program of charting the coast and inlets?


Mr. CARDIN:: It is the intention of the
government to continue the hydrographic survey of the west coast of Vancouver island and to prosecute the work with the greatest expedition that weather conditions and available facilities will permit.


IMPERIAL WIRELESS AND CABLE CONFERENCE
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: 1.	Has the report of the Imperial Wireless and Cable conference, 1928, been accepted by the Dominion government?
2.	Has the share of the Pacific cable owned by Canada been transferred to the Communications Company, or to any other company?
3.	If so: (a) what price has Canada received for the same; (b) under what authority was the transfer made?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce in parliament any legislation in connection with this matter?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	The recommendations of the Imperial Wireless and Cable conference, 1928, have been in general accepted by the governments concerned including the government of Canada.
2.	The Imperial Telegraphs Act, 1928, which received the royal assent February 5, 1929, provides that the Pacific Cable Board with the consent of and on terms approved by all the partner governments may sell to the Communications Company the Pacific cable undertaking. Negotiations are in progress.
3.	See 2.
4.	The necessity for concurring legislation is under consideration.


PORT MAITLAND HARBOUR REPAIRS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	Was a contract awarded for the repairs now under way to the west pier at Port Maitland harbour, Ontario?
2.	If so, to whom and at what price?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Messrs. Cameron & Phin; (b) Approximately $28,058 (unit prices).


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government any plans for providing employment for the great body of the unemployed?
2.	(f so. what are they and what action will be taken and when?


Mr. HEENAN:: 1 The question of unemployment is one for the provincial governments.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


PORT ARTHUR DRY DOCK AND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY
Mr. PECK:: 1.	Are any subsidies paid by the government to the Port Arthur .Dry Dock and Shipbuilding
Company?
2.	If so, what are the terms of the subsidy contract, and since what date has such subsidy been paid?
3.	What amount has been paid per year as subsidy to the above-mentioned company, during the past five years?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Certain annual subsidies are being paid to the National Trust Company, Limited, as trustees for the bond holders of the Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company, Limited.
2.	Subsidy for 20 years at the rate of 3 per cent on the cost of the dock, namely, $1,258,050. Commencing July 16, 1914, there were four annual payments on account, each amounting to S35,641.50. The full subsidy of $37,741.50 has been paid annually since October 19, 1918. There will be sixteen payments of $37,741.50, followed by four payments of $2,100 to complete the four payments of $35,641.50.
3.	$37,741.50.


POST OFFICE-WEIGHT OF MAIL
Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	What is the weight of first class mail carried by the Canadian post office system from each of the larger countries in the Postal Union, namely, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the United States, and what is the total of these weights?
2.	What is the weight of first class mail sent out from Canada to each of the larger countries in the Postal Union, namely, Great Britain, France. Germany, Italy and the United States, and what is the total of these weights?
3.	What is the weight of second class mail carried by the Canadian post office system from each of the larger countries in the Postal Union, namely. Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the United States, and what is the total of these weights?
4.	What is the weight of second class mail sent out from Canada to each of the larger countries of the Postal Union, namely, Great Britain. France. Germany, Italy and the United States, and what is the total of these weights?
Questions


Mr. YENIOT:: 1.
Approximate
Weight
pounds
Country	per annum
Great Britain	 700,000
France	 35,000
Germany	  8,000
Italy	   8,000
United States	 2,300,000
3,051,000
Great Britain	 700,000
France	 18,000
Germany		5,000
Italy	 10,000
United States	 2,000,000
2,733,000
3.
Great Britain	 5,800,000
France	 30,000
Germany	 12,000
Italy		12,000
United States		8,500,000
14,354,000
4.
Great Britain	 900,000
France	 20,000
Germany	   4,000
Italy	 5.000
United States	 5,000,000
5,929,000


EMPLOYMENT SERVICE COUNCIL
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	How many meetings of the Employment Service Council of Canada were held in 1928?
2.	Who were the representatives: (a) invited, and (b) in attendance at each meeting of the council ?
3.	Who paid the expenses of the delegates for attendance?
4.	What was the amount of the expenses so
paid ?


Mr. HEENAN:: 1.	One general meeting and two executive meetings.
2.	(a) The entire membership of the Employment Service Council of Canada was invited as follows:
Representing-Members Province of Nova Scotia, Hon. J. A. Walker; Province of New Brunswick, Geo. R. Melvin; Province of Quebec, Jos. Ainey; Province o' Ontario, J. H. H. Ballantyne; Province of 
Manitoba, J. A. Bowman; Province of Saskatchewan, G. E. Tomsett; Province of Alberta, W. Smitten; Province of British Columbia, J. D. McNiven; Canadian Manufacturers' Association, E. Blake Robertson; Canadian Manufacturers' Association, H. W. Macdonnell; The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, J. T. Foster; The Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, Jas. Simpson; The Railway Association of Canada, C. P. Riddell; The Canadian Railway Brotherhoods,
S.	N. Berry; The Canadian Council of Agriculture, Bruce McNevin; The Canadian Council of Agriculture, J. W. Ward; The Department of Labour, Mrs. Chas. Caucutt; The Department of Labour, Mrs. Edith Rogers, M.L.A.; The Department of Labour, R. A. Rigg; The Returned Soldiers' Organizations, Geo. Herwig; The Department of Pensions and National Health, E. H. Scammell; The Canadian Construction Association, J. Clark Reilly; The Canadian Lumbermen's Association, R. L. Sargant.
Executive Committee
Chairman, Jas. Simpson, Toronto, Ont.; Vice-Chairman, J. Clark Reilly, Ottawa, Ont.; Secretary, R. A. Rigg, Ottawa, Ont., and three additional members, one to be named by each of the folowing to attend executive meetings; Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, and the Canadian Council of Agriculture.
(b) All members except E. Blake Robertson attended the general meeting. J. Clark Reilly did not attend the second executive meeting.
3.	The expenses of the members were paid (a) by the provinces on behalf of their nominees (the amount later being submitted to the Department of Labour for payment of the department's contribution to the provinces under the Employment Offices' Co-ordination Act), and (b) by the Department of Labour on behalf of the remaining members.
4.	The Department of Labour paid $969.45 for other than the provincial nominees and a portion (approximately one-third) of $825.83 on account of provincial representatives.


ORDNANCE LAND, SHELBURNE-TIMBER SALE
Mr. ERNST:: 11.	When this timber was offered for sale in the year 1926. how many tenders were submitted ?
12.	Who were the parties that tendered?
13.	What price was offered in each case?
14.	Why was the timber not disposed of at this time?
15.	Is the barracks property leased to the town of Shelburne?
16.	Tf so, to what extent?
17.	Were there former leases of this property to the town of Shelburne?

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
18.	If so, what area did they embrace?
19.	Does the present lease to the town of Shelburne, if any, embrace a smaller or larger area ?
20.	If any change was made, what was the reason for the change?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I be permitted a further answer to the question of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) asked on Monday, February 18?
11. Timber not offered for sale in 1926. Tenders called for in January, 1927. Three tenders submitted.
12 and 13. Henry Davis, Shelburne, N.S., $500; S. A. Muir, Shelburne, N.S., S650; The Shelburne Wood Workers Ltd., Shelburne, N.S., $900.
14.	The highest tender was not equal to the upset price placed on the timber.
15.	A portion of the barracks property is leased to the town of Shelburne.
16.	The area requested by the town for picnic grounds, etc., contained 19.9 acres.
17.	Yes.
18.	About 200 acres.
19.	A smaller area.
20.	The town had difficulty in protecting the timber in the whole area and required Gnlv about twenty acres for picnic and park purposes. The lease for the whole area was cancelled and a lease for as much as the town asked for was given them.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
OLD AGE PENSIONS	-
Mr. CHURCH:: For a copy of all correspondence, orders in council, agreements, and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any member thereof, and the government of th* Province of Ontario, or any member thereof, relating to old age pensions for the said province of Ontario, and showing the terms and conditions of federal aid in this matter.


PINE FALLS LEASE
Mr. HEAPS:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, and other documents in the possession of the government, pertaining to the lease of Pine falls to the Manitoba Paper Company.


BAILEY'S BROOK PIER-PICTOU WHARVES
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the minister of public works, the deputy minister, or any officer or clerk of the department, and any person or persons in the county of Pictou, referring to or in any way dealing with the subject of repairs or renewals of the repairs to or the extension of the pier at Bailey's Brook and repairs to railway wharves, Pictou; also for a copy of all payrolls and accounts in connection with both of above works;
2.	For a return showing the names of the several foremen and all persons employed thereon, the number of days of employment, the rate of pay and the total amount paid each;
3.	For a return showing materials used in such repairs or renewals, particularly the kinds and quantities of timber, lumber, iron and steel, and fastenings, and the prices paid therefor;
4.	For a return showing other materials, their quantities and the prices paid therefor, the total cost of same in each case and the names of the parties from whom purchased and the amounts paid to each;
5.	For a statement showing the date when the work on each of these repair operations begun, when operations ceased, whether repairs are completed in each case, and if not, what proportion of the work has been done, when the work will be resumed and when completed.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I do not. rise to offer any objection to the motion, but simply to point out that when the estimates were being prepared we discovered some increases in the different departments, and upon inquiry we were advised by the deputies that the increases were due to the very greatly increased work that had fallen on the departments in preparing returns asked for by this parliament. I submit that a motion such as this will add materially to the expenses for the coming year, and next year possibly we may be asked for further increases to pay for additional help required in preparing these returns for parliament.


Thomas Cantley: The minister is getting very economical all at once.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Abraham Albert Heaps: For a copy of all letters, cables, correspondence and other documents or agreements, entered into by the Canadian government in connection with the imperial cable merger of 1928.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General) :: Before this motion is carried, I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that we have certain correspondence of a private nature between the contracting parties, the different governments of England, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and that until we receive permission to place that correspondence on the table, we cannot do so. I might further add that the merger includes not only the Pacific cable but other cables over which Canada has no control. I would ask the hon. gentleman if he would allow the matter to stand, and perhaps before the end of the session we may be able to obtain the information that he is now seeking and place it before the house.
410	COMMONS
Si. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Church


Abraham Albert Heaps: This question has been thoroughly discussed in other parliaments in different parts of the empire, and there is no reason why the house should not have an opportunity for discussing it after we have been able to go through the papers which may be in the possession of the government. I have an idea that the papers which the minister may want to hold back, have been produced in some other parts of the empire.


Peter John Veniot: That may be quite true, but there is no evidence to show that any part of this confidential correspondence has been submitted to the British parliament. If that has been done, permission from the other governments has most likely been received. We have not had time since this motion was placed on the order paper to obtain permission. I have no hesitation in having the matter discussed, but I do hesitate to produce documents of a confidential nature before getting permission to produce them.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have no objection to the statement of the Postmaster General (Mr. Venict), except that he states it may take till the end of the session before the papers are produced. Surely it would not take that long.


Peter John Veniot: I did not say that.
Motion stands.


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY DEVELOPMENT OF WATER-POWER AND IMPROVEMENT OF NAVIGATION
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from February 21, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr Church:
That, in the opinion of this house, immediate action should be taken, without further and unnecessary delays, to enter into a treaty with the government of the United States for the immediate development and generation of waterpower on the St. Lawrence river and its deepening and development in the interests of navigation, and that a great St. Lawrence waterway is an immediate and economic necessity for the welfare and best interests of Canada.
And that this house is further of the opinion that the government should undertake the construction and operation of this canal as a public undertaking itself and the power incident herein should be developed and generated at cost by the government for the people under public ownership and not alienated to private interests for gain or exported for use outside Canada.
He said:	This particular resolution calls
for a national federal policy regarding the St. Lawrence waterway, a policy such as was given to Ontario in light and power in this matter by Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck.

There would have been no hydro-electric movement in Ontario had it not been for the Conservative party. It was this policy of Whitney and Beck that did so much for the industries of the province of Ontario, and made it the great agricultural province it is to-day, by giving cheap power and light to the farmer, the labourer, and the housewife in the urban centres of population.
The particular St. Lawrence waterway proposition before us has been under discussion and has stood the test of investigation by committees of advisory engineers for ten years. They have made their report, and the Conservative party, if in power, would have no difficulty whatever in solving this problem. There is, I admit, a little division in our own party on this question, between our friends from Quebec and our friends from Ontario, but I predict a solution will be had that under our honoured leader (Mr. Bennett), who has given his life to public service, and has spent his best years in service for others and for the good of the country generally. There is no district in the province of Ontario where the name of Hon. R. B. Bennett is more honoured and stands higher or more respected by everybody and by all classes of citizens than in Toronto.
The Conservative party would have no difficulty in solving this problem were they in offioe. So far as I am concerned, I make no apology about saying I have always been a Whitney-Beck Conservative. I have stood for the preservation of our water-powers for the people all the time, and I would like to see the Conservative party in this Dominion take up the development of the St. Lawrence waterway and make it a plank in the Conservative party platform. The country owes everything of a constructive nature to the Conservative party. It is the party which the country always sends for when in trouble. The Liberal-Conservative party founded the hydro-electric system in the face of the opposition of the Ross-Hardy government. I warn this government to be very careful in what it does with respect to water-power, because in 1905 the Ross-Hardy government in Ontario was defeated at the polls and driven from office by people of all parties in the province of Ontario because of the iniquitous power deals they had made. To-day in the city of Winnipeg the Bracken government is on its last legs over the question of the Seven Sisters falls. A year ago the Beauharnois boys very nearly got away with the title deeds of power in the St. Lawrence waterway, from this government in power here at Ottawa, and then we would have had, the' St. Lawrence

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Chwch
waterway. Last session I asked for papers to be brought down to parliament dealing with the Seven Sisters question, but the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) asked me to let my motion stand, and the result was that the proper papers have never been brought down at all. I advise the government to go slow in regard to the Beauharnois project. Let them look at Winnipeg and see what is happening there over cheap light and power. The people of Canada are in no mood to put up with this giving away of the title deeds to our natural resources.
The Conservative party was responsible for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. It is the party that is responsible for the policy of protection. It has always been a consistent constructive party, and has always been ready to risk unpopularity to stand by its principles. It is the Conservative party that is to-day developing the Pacific coast province, where the Liberal administration was recently defeated at the polls. The Conservative party at present in Ontario has given the province the best administration it has ever had in the various departments since confederation. We now have honesty of administration. The different public departments in the province were never so well run as they are to-day. We have never had such progressive administration in the province in the matter of public health, good roads, education or research. There is only one matter in which I differ from the government of the province, and that is they have given up the policy of Sir Adam Beck, and are failing to generate and distribute the power and have become just a purchaser of power. No public enterprise ever encountered the venom and experienced more unfair and unjust misrepresentation than did the work of the HydroElectric Power Commision of Ontario, and now the St. Lawrence waterway has to encounter the same kind of opposition. But the hydro-electric power commission became the chief glory of the Liberal-Conservative party in Ontario, headed by Sir James Whitney and Sir Adam Beck.
The country always sends for the Conservative part in time of national difficulty and when great economic problems have to be solved. If any government ever made a football of a great economic problem it is the present government in its treatment of the St. Lawrence waterway. They talk about a division of opinion in the Conservative party with respect to the proper solution of this question; but that is nothing compared with the lack of harmony among hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to the same question. This government no longer represents the true principles of Liberalism. Sir James Whitney and
Sir Adam Beck, when they founded the hydro, had to face all kinds of opposition, abuse and obstruction. They were even called amateur anarchists, and the opponents of the hydro in the press and in the elections did everything to ridicule the Niagara and Chippawa power projects
Lord Kelvin was called in to advise regarding the possibility of bringing power from DeCew falls to Hamilton, thirty-eight miles. Apparently he could not see very far, for he said that if they put their money in the Welland canal they could dredge the canal and might get it back, but if they put their money in the proposed DeCew falls development they would never get it back. Amid such doubts and fears Sir Adam Beck went ahead and overcame all opposition and, backed up by the hydro Conservatives, he made hydro development in Ontario the sucess it is today as a means of cheap light and power. The government and its Beauharnois friends will have the battle of their lives on their hands if they try to alienate the sovereign rights of the province of Ontario in the water-powers of the St. Lawrence and the water-powers of Ontario. These are the property of the people, and they must be developed for the benefit of the people. It was the people's money that demonstrated the worth of waterpower development in Ontario, and there can be no greater dereliction of duty on the part of those who are departing from that basic principle under the bogey of a temporary saving by buying power instead of developing it, a saving which in years to come will cost the people of this province tens of millions of dollars. There should have been no departure from that basic policy of Sir Adam Beck.
In the Beauharnois company the people of Canada are threatened by a monopoly more powerful than Canada has ever seen, and should the water-powers of the St. Lawrence be turned over to that company, generations yet unborn will be adversely affected in their economic and industrial development, and in their domestic life. In parting with these water-powers we are in effect placing a huge debt on future generations and mortgaging the profits of their labour.
As the Ontario government has apparently changed its hydro policy, and has revoked Sir Adam Beck's program of developing and generating power, becoming thereby a mere customer or purchaser of power from the electric monopoly in Quebec, the federal government has a great opportunity to come out with a federal hydro policy. And it is not outside the British North America Act for the federal authorities to develop and generate power from
412	COMMONS
St. Laurence Waterway-Mr. Church
canal works and distribute the current at cost to the provinces. This would make for a greater Canada.
The national advisory committee appointed by the government reported on the St. Lawrence project as follows:
1.	That the project is practical, necessary and urgent;
2.	There is no fear of United States aggression, or loss of sovereign rights;
3.	It involves no further cost to the Dominion government or the taxpayer;
4.	That it will be of incalculable benefit in navigation and power;
5.	The entire project is an economic desire that should be immediately accomplished.
This report goes on to show the utter economic absurdity of an all-Canadian canal. An all-Canadian canal is not feasible from the standpoint of navigation, power or diversion of water, and the country could not afford it. The sovereignty bogey is raised by the private power interests to enable them to grab the people's heritage. They talk about the American bogey while various Ontario governments have conceded in economic ways to the Americans more territory than did King George III. Prom the Ottawa river to the Nipigon, in the vast hinterland of new Ontario, the timber, the pulpwood, the mines and the water-powers have been ceded to American promoters for a few paltry dollars.
I believe the time has come when the Conservative party should take up this St. Lawrence waterway question. They should close their ranks and try to solve this vital problem for the benefit of the central provinces of Canada. That used to be the attitude of the Ontario government. I heard Mr. Ferguson on platforms all over Ontario supporting that policy of a greater St. Lawrence waterway. If they have since revoked Sir Adam Beck's program I shall be much surprised, because it will hurt the Conservative party in Ontario which has always been the champion of the great public ownership policy in Ontario under which hydro-electric development has been made such an outstanding success. The Conservatives did it all and deserve the credit. The municipalities of Ontario now have nearly $300,000,000 invested in that development in light, power and transportation. The city of Toronto has an investment of nearly $100,000,000, and it is my duty to protect that investment, and I will continue to protect it. If the Ontario government have become a mere customer of the great electric monopoly in Quebec, then the federal government has a unique oppor-
tunity to proclaim a federal hydro policy. As I have already said, such a policy is not outside the British North America Act. What is wanted is a national and federal canal policy, and a national and federal hydro policy, as applied to the St. Lawrence. This would be the salvation of Canada and the making of any party that undertakes it in the open.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) might more appropriately be termed a series of resolutions. With the permission of the house I will re-read his motion:
That, in the opinion of this house, immediate action should be taken, without further and unnecessary delays, to enter into a treaty with the government of the United States for the "'.mediate development and generation of waterpower on the St. Lawrence river and its deepening and development in the interests of navigation. and that a great St. Lawrence waterway is an immediate and economic necessity for the welfare and best interests of Canada.
And that this house is further of the opinion that the government should undertake the coni' iction and operation of this canal as a public undertaking itself and the power incident herein should be developed and generated at cost by the government for the people under public ownership and not alienated to private interests for gain or exported for use outside Canada.
The house will observe that the motion asks, first of all, that a treaty be entered into immediately with the United States for the development and generation of waterpower on the, St. Lawrence. That is the first proposal; it is with respect to waterpower. The second is that a treaty be entered into immediately with the United States for the deepening and development of the St. Lawrence river in the interests of navigation. The third proposal is that the house declare that a great St. Lawrence waterway is an immediate and economic necessity for the welfare and best interests of Canada. In the fourth place, the resolution proposes that the government of Canada should undertake the construction and operation of this canal as a public enterprise. The resolution does not say what canal is meant, whether it is some canal, which is to be ancilliary to the St. Lawrence river, or whether it is the channel of the St. Lawrence when deepened. Then there is a fifth proposal, that the power incidental to the canal-that is, either the supplementary canal or the deepened channel of the St. Lawrence-should be developed and generated by the government at cost. There is a sixth proposal, that the power incidental to the canal should be developed under public ownership and not as a private undertaking.

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
And, finally, there is the recommendation that the power incidental to the canal should not be exported for use outside of Canada.
There are seven different propositions on which the house is .called upon to pronounce an a single resolution. I direct the attention of the house to this immediately, because it is important that all parties interested should understand the reason which may govern the house should it decline to accept the resolution in the form in which it has been presented. It is not a single resolution; rather, as I have said, it is a bill of fare, and I am inclined to think contains too many items to admit of proper digestion at a single session of parliament.
I would invite my hon. friend's attention to the step which was taken early last year to refer to the supreme court an important constitutional question relative to the respective rights of the provinces and of the Dominion with respect to power generated in connection with developments by the Dominion for navigation purposes. The hon. member has taken too little account of the answers which have been given by the supreme court to this question. They concern the relative rights of the Dominion and the provinces in relation to proprietary interest in and legislative control over waters with respect to navigation and water-powers made available by or in connection with works for the improvement of navigation.
Take the first recommendation of the resolution.-that a treaty be entered into immediately with the United States for the development and generation of water-power on the St. Lawrence river. My hon. friend's remarks directed to the government with respect to water-powers have for the most part been to the effect that this government has no right whatever to deal with the question of water-powers; yet be now suggests, in the first clause of his resolution, that we should enter into a treaty with the United States in connection with the generation of water-power. Were the government to undertake to follow the hon. gentleman, I fancy we would not be able to proceed very far before he himself would be the first to object that we were exceeding our jurisdiction in entering a field of operation which is one with which the provinces are more particularly concerned.
I do not intend to review the various proposals of my hon. friend's resolution but rather to discuss the broad subject of the development of the St. Lawrence, because I take it that this is the theme which it was intended should be discussed upon the introduction of the resolution.
For over one hundred years past the St. Lawrence river has afforded a common highway and transportation outlet to the peoples in the interior of this continent, whether residing in Canada or in the United States. In that period of time the St. Lawrence highway has been the subject of many treaties and conventions and its development has been, as well, a matter of continuous effort and consideration. I have in my hand a report of a special committee of the senate of Canada which was appointed at the last session, to inquire into the development and improvement of the St. Lawrence river. At page 7 of that report there ds a chapter entitled, "A Quarter of a Century of International Negotiation". This chapter, which was prepared by Mr. Yates, the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Railways and Canals, sets out the more important stages in the negotiations between Canada and the United States respecting the St. Lawrence river development. In discussing this matter I intend to use the word "negotiations" in the same sense in which it is used in this report of the senate committee. Possibly the words "joint consideration" would be even more appropriate than the word "negotiation", lest by use of the latter term it might be inferred that steps have been taken which are of a binding character with respect to the particular project which is the subject of discussion at the present moment.
Reviewing negotiations which have taken place, it will be found that the most important step was taken twenty years ago when a treaty was entered into with respect to boundary waters. The treaty was made in 1909, and pursuant thereto the International Joint Commission was appointed, to which commission were referred, among other subjects, matters pertaining to the development of the St. Lawrence waterway. In 1919 the International Joint Commission took up more particularly the investigation of the feasibility of improving navigation facilities on the St. Lawrence between Montreal and lake Ontario so as to transform that section into an ocean shipway; its report was made to the governments of the United States and of Canada respectively in December, 1921. In that report the International Joint Commission strongly recommended the undertaking of the deepening of the St. Lawrence as an ocean shipway between Montreal and lake Ontario. The commission, however, advised that before a final decision was made there should be a further examination by a board of engineers with regard to engineering considerations, of which account would have to be taken. On
414	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
March 14, 1924, the president of the United States appointed what was known as the St. Lawrence River Commission, of which the Honourable Mr. Hoover, then Secretary of Commerce, now the president-elect of the United States, was made chairman. This commission was asked to consider the whole project in its economic and national aspects and to express an opinion as to whether the project should be undertaken. Shortly after the appointment of this commission by the United States government the government of Canada on May 7 appointed a body with similar functions. It is known [DOT]as the National Advisory Committee. Of that committee Right Hon. George P. Graham, the then Minister of Railways and Canals, was appointed chairman. By an exchange of notes between the two governments, through the arrangements brought about by these two bodies, a joint engineering board was a'p,pointed and instructed to review and extend the engineering plans as recommended by the International Joint Commission in 1921. The joint engineering board, composed of three representatives from the United States and three from Canada, went into matters very carefully and it made an elaborate re-survey of lake and river systems both as to navigation and power, and its report to both governments upon all the engineering aspects was presented on November 16, 1926. For the most part the report is unanimous; it is unanimous in its statement as to the feasibility and advisability of the improvement of the St. Lawrence waterway for navigation and power purposes. With reference to the advisability of the undertaking, if I am not mistaken, it draws attention to the fact that there are considerations of which each of the countries may wish to take account, but as an engineering project it makes it quite clear that the deepening of the St. Lawrence as a ship-way is wholly feasible. There was a difference of opinion between the engineers appointed by the United States government and those appointed by the Canadian government with respect to the best form of development; the United States engineers favoured a single stage development in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river, while the Canadian engineers favoured a two-stage development in that section. This report was submitted to the United States St. Lawrence River Commission whose members accepted it and advised the United States government to do likewise. The commission recommended 
that negotiations should be entered into with the government of Canada in an endeavour to arrive at an agreement as to the development of the waterway. The government of the United States adopted the recommendations of the St. Lawrence River Commission and so advised the Canadian government. In this manner correspondence was opened between Canada and the United States in a series of communications which extended over the period April, 1927, to April, 1928.
The first communrioation was from the United States and was dated April 13, 1927. It proposed as I have already indicated that negotiations should be entered into to arrive at an agreement with respect to the deepening of the St. Lawrence as an ocean shipway, and Canada was invited to become a part}'' to such an agreement. At the time this communication was received the advisory board in Canada was awaiting appendices to the report of the joint board of engineers which contained alternative plans with respect to the development of the international rapids section, and the board advised the government not to reply finally to the request with respect to an agreement until they had been given an opportunity to consider in its entirety the report of the joint board of engineers. Accordingly on July 12 a communication was sent to the United States government advising that there would be a delay in answering its request but that when we had received further information from our national advisory board we would reply, discussing the whole situation, including the proposal made.
In January, 1928. the national advisory committee made its report to the Dominion government. The committee had received a full report from the joint engineering board, and in its report to the government it set out what in its opinion was the nature of the reply which should be made by Canada to the United States. Subsequently a reply was sent to the United States government very much along the lines indicated by the national advisory committee. That reply pointed out that in addition to the engineering features there were important financial and economic considerations which Canada would require to be taken into account and also that, with regard to one particular phase of the matter, namely, the export of power, it would have to be distinctly understood we could not consider any agreement which would involve the exportation of power from Canada to the United States.

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
Perhaps in passing I might touch on this point specifically. It is the last one referred to in the resolution of my hon. friend and is one which it might be well to have in mind in connection with any further consideration of the matter. Our government has repeatedly made clear its policy with respect to the exportation of power from Canada to the United States. We have given it as our opinion that power should not be exported. That opinion was endorsed by the national advisory committee with respect to the power which might be generated in connection with the development of the St. Lawrence. Accordingly, in writing the United States with respect to any possible basis of negotiation, our position in this regard was made very clear. The exact statement made by our government will be found in the correspondence which passed between the United States and Canada all of which was tabled in this house on April 17, of last year. In that correspondence will be found a communication dated January 31, 1928, which contains these words:
Reference was made in your note to the early development of hydro-electric power as a factor which must have equal application to and influence upon the Dominion of Canada. The opportunity of developing great quantities of power incidental to navigation is, it is agreed, a special advantage possesed by the St. Lawrence project, and an important consideration in determining its advisability. In this aspect of the project, however, there are again special features in the Canadian situation which it is desirable to make clear. Public opinion in Canada is opposed to the export of hydroelectric power, and is insistent that such power as may he rendered available on the St. Lawrence, whether from the wholly Canadian section, or from the Canadian half of the international section, shall be utilized within the Dominion to stimulate Canadian industry and d avelop the natural resources. With this view the national advisory committee expresses itself as in complete accord.
When the United States government replied to our communication it was made perfectly clear that from the point of view of the United States, Canada was entirely within her rights in taking such a position, and that no question would be raised on the part of the United States with respect tbeireto. This recognition of Canada's attitude and right will be found in the communication dated March 12, 1928. and is as follows:
The United States fully recognizes the right of the Dominion of Canada to the ownership and use of the Canadian share of the power which may be developed in the international section of the waterway as well as to all that developed in the national section and it recognizes also that the disposition of the power is purely a domestic question. It recognizes further that this share is an inherent attribute of Canadian sovereignty, irrespective of the agency by which the power may be developed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I ask the date of that communication?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That communication was dated March 12, 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Have any licenses been
granted during the last two years for the exportation of power?


Mr. MALCOLM:: The principal license
covers export of off-peak power granted to the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend is referring to the development of Niagara power that settlement has been endorsed by the Ontario government. It was a matter of negotiation between the government of Ontario and this government, as well as the government of the United States.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hydro-electric?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. That
matter will possibly come up when we discuss the approval of a treaty between the United States and Canada with respect to the scenic beauty of Niagara Falls.
What I wish to make clear at the moment is that, with respect to any projected St. Lawrence development, this parliament may take it as definitely settled and understood between the United States and Canada that power generated on the St. Lawrence and belonging to Canada will not be exported to the United States but will be used for the development of our industries and our natural resources.
The national advisory committee, in indicating the points which in its opinion should be mentioned to the United States in reply to its communication, touched, among other things, on the depth to which it would be advisable to deepen the canal. The joint engineering board had suggested a depth of 25 feet, but the advisory board was of the opinion that the canal should be dredged to a depth of 27 feet; that that would be a wise precaution, having regard to possible future development and contingencies. This was embodied in our reply The attention of the United States government was also drawn to the difference between their engineers and ours with respect to sing'e and double stage development and also to the fact that engineers of the Ontario government had plans which differed in some particulars from the plans prepared by the engineers of the Canadian government and the joint engineering board'; it was stated we would naturally be desirous of having the engineers appointed by the federal government to the joint engineering board meet with the engineers of the province of Ontario to discuss the two
416	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie Kin']
Canadian plans-if I may so refer to them- and see if an agreement could not be reached between them with respect thereto.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Ontario plans referred only to waters other than international.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, they referred to the international rapids section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Ontario government
took the position, as did the Quebec government, as I understand it, that with respect to waters which were not international in character they and they only had the right to construct works that did not in any sense interfere with or impede navigation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
here the phraseology used, but I have been corresponding with the Premier of Ontario with respect to the matter, and I have had in mind the rapids section referred to by the joint engineers in their report, and I am sure Mr. Ferguson had the same waters in mind. These waters are part of the international section of the St. Lawrence.
In its communication to the United States government replying to the possibility of our entering into negotiations to arrive, at a treaty with respect to the deepening of the St. Lawrence, the Canadian government sought to bring to the attention of the United States government all considerations which were likely to be material factors in arriving at any settlement. These questions were brought up at the outset so that there might be no doubt in the minds of either the Canadian public or the American public as to the basis on which we would be prepared to proceed with negotiations, which basis we regarded as allimportant. In this regard mention was made first, of certain financial considerations; secondly, of certain economic considerations; thirdly, of the engineering considerations; and fourthly, a matter to which I have not as yet referred, of the constitutional question between the provinces and the Dominion as to their relative rights in the matter of water powers made available by or in connection with works for the improvement of navigation.
May I pause for a moment to say a word as to the constitutional question. In the fall of 1927 a Dominion-provincial conference was held in this city, at which questions of concern to the provinces and ourselves were freely discussed. At that conference the premiers of Ontario and Quebec brought up the question of power rights as between the Dominion and the provinces where the power was generated as a result of developments for navigation purposes. We were asked if we would refer

that subject to the Supreme Court to get an opinion as to the respective rights of the provinces and the Dominion. We agreed to do so, and on January 18, 1928, the Dominion government presented a series of questions to the Supreme Court with respect to the relative rights, interests, powers and control of the Dominion and the provinces respectively as they pertained to power and navigation. After these questions had been submitted we were asked by the provinces if we would agree to supplement them by other questions which would clarify the position as to the rights of the provinces with respect to power. Complying with that request, the original order in council of January 18 was amended on April 14 to include two additional questions which the provinces wished to have added to .the original questions submitted. The Supreme Court had its hearing on these matters in October, and within the month past has given its answers to the questions which were submitted.


Mr. GEARY:: Is the right hon. gentleman free to say what action, if any, and what steps, if any, are to be taken with regard to the judgment to which he has just referred, either by way of appeal or resubmission of the questions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will come to that in a few minutes.
The conference between the provinces and the Dominion having taken place in the month of November and before our reply was sent to the United States, we felt that we should draw the attention of the United States to the fact that these constitutional questions had been raised by the provinces at this conference, and the fact that we were submitting to the Supreme Court, a series of questions, and asking the Supreme Court for answers thereto. What we asked the United States in so many words was whether the United States would be prepared, when it came to negotiating, to accept as a basis of negotiation what, we had indicated] we would wish to have taken into account with respect to finances; what we had indicated would have to be taken into account with respect to economic conditions; what might have to be taken into account as the result of the answers made by the supreme court to the questions which had been submitted. Finally, we made mention of the Dominion's desire to have a conference with the provinces immediately concerned, namely, Ontario and Quebec, before giving a final answer to the United States in reference to the suggested agreement. In other words,

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
our .communication sent on January 31, 1928, outlined the considerations of which we felt Canada would have to take account, and asked if the procedure outlined would afford " an acceptable 'basis of negotiation," in which event we would then consult with the provinces, once the supreme court's answers to our questions were given.
The reply, dated March 12, which we received from the United States, was with respect to all these matters broadly in the affirmative. The government of the United States said that While it could not say that lit agreed with all that was set out in the report of the advisory committee, nevertheless it felt inclined to regard as an acceptable basis of negotiation a proposal along the general lines indicated, namely, along what had been suggested with respect to a division of costs, what had been referred to as economic considerations of which we would have to take account, and the matter of there being no exportation of hydro-electric power as the result of any agreement that might be entered into, and finally, the understanding that the Dominion should, before seeking any final settlement, have a conference with the provinces immediately concerned. I think that covers fainly accurately most of the essential points. It was suggested that the two countries should proceed with the appointment of commissioners to discuss jointly the problems presented with a view to the formulation of a convention. We replied on April 5. 1928, that Canada recognized that an acceptable basis of negotiation had been found sufficiently definite to enable us to take the next step, namely, that of consultation with the provinces concerned, following which we would be in a position to make an appropriate reply to the United States. The United States on April 7 agreed that our government should take up this matter with the provinces.
With regard to the engineering features the United States government also intimated that it could see no objection to the Dominion engineers conferring with the engineers of the province of Ontario with a view of seeing whether an agreement might not be reached between Ontario and the Dominion as to the best plan of development of the international rapids section. The United States went a step further and indicated that after the province and the Dominion had come to an agreement on engineering features with respect to the Canadian point of view, they would be quite willing to refer the whole engineering aspect of the question back of the joint board of engineers with a view to seeing whether there could not be, as there 7S594-27
would necessarily have to be in time, unanimity with respect to the plan of development of the international rapids section.
I	hope I have made clear what the difference really is with respect to the development of the international section. The United States engineers preferred a one-stage development; they preferred that because they believed it would be less costly; that more power could be developed at a less cost, and that it would obviate the necessity of the construction of one lock. The Canadian engineers preferred a two-stage development, believing that it would avoid the necessity of constructing the large embankments or levees necessitated by the single-stage plan, which the Canadian engineers thought would be viewed with some concern by communities in the immediate vicinity. It was also felt by the Canadian engineers that a two-stage development would permit of the power being developed and marketed by degrees; that the power from the first stage would be available before the second stage was commenced, and that by the time the second stage was completed, the country would be in a position to absorb the further power.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Can the Prime Minister tell us the difference in the cost of the two projects?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sorry I
have not the figures showing the difference in cost. The report contains them. The Canadian project is somewhat more expensive, but how much more expensive I cannot say. The United States government suggested in the communication to which I have just referred, that it might be unnecessary to wait until the engineers had completed their further consideration of the projects, before appointing commissioners to draft the convention that might serve as a means of bringing about an agreement. It was suggested that possibly commissioners might be appointed and the work of arranging an agreement proceeded with while the engineers were doing their technical work; that they would be called upon to advise any commission that might be appointed and that the two could proceed concurrently. At this point in April of last year the correspondence between the Dominion and the United States concluded.
From April up to the present time there has been no further correspondence for the reason that we have been awaiting the answers by the supreme court to the questions which were submitted to it. The answers were given at the beginning of this month. Hon. members must already be familiar, if not with the text, at least with the general nature of them. We had hoped we might find in the answers which

41S	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
the supreme court would give to the questions submitted to it, a solution to the very intricate and involved question of the relative rights of the provinces and the Dominion with respect to power. But while the answers which have been given by the supreme court have clarified certain points, they certainly do not help very much in making clear many of the questions that are of importance with respect to the relative rights of the provinces and the Dominion in the matter of power. The court did not find itself able to give a very definite answer to several of the more important questions submitted. It will apparently be difficult to secure from the courts by submission of questions of general scope any definite or precise finding. In so many words, the judges of the supreme court say-and their opinion is unanimous-that it is impossible, from a series of abstract questions, to give concrete answers which will meet all situations which may arise; that the only way in which, so far as the courts are concerned, definite answers may be expected with regard to this involved question, is to have each case submitted and decided on its merits.
This much is clear, and here I come to answer my hon. friend who interrupted me a moment ago. From the opinion of the supreme court it would seem that we might wait from now to the day of judgment, if I may use that expression, to get from any court an opinion conclusive enough to settle as between the Dominion and the provinces all of the questions with respect to their relative rights in the matter of power. So far as we can be guided by the opinion of the supreme court, it would appear that if an appeal from the answers which they have given were taken to the privy council, we could expect nothing more from the privy council in the way of definiteness than what we have already obtained from the supreme court. In the circumstances, having sought in the first instance a solution of the constitutional question by an appeal to the courts, and having received the replies which we have received, the government is of opinion that it is in the interests of all concerned, of the provinces and of the Dominion in their relations to each other, as well as of the Dominion in its relation to the United States in dealing with this question of international waterways, that we should not seek for the present at least to settle this matter by any further reference to the courts, but that we should endeavour to seek a solution by direct conference between the provinces immediately concerned and ourselves. Accordingly the government has decided, as we advised the United States government we would decide when we received the replies

from the supreme court, to ask the governments of Ontario and Quebec to meet us in conference, to see if it is not possible to arrive by agreement between us at some settlement which will secure the provinces in their full rights with respect to power, and secure the Dominion with respect to all national interests involved. We are at the present time sending communications to the Premier of Ontario and to the Premier of Quebec asking that, as soon after this session of parliament is over as may be convenient to them, they meet us in conference, that we may see as a result of direct conference whether it is not possible for us to come to an agreement which, as I have said, will permit without further question the development of the power in which the provinces are interested, and which will secure the Dominion in all its rights in respect to navigation and power, and which will enable the St. Lawrence development to go forward on such lines as may be agreed upon between the provinces and ourselves; in other words, to see if it is not possible to work out a plan of St. Lawrence development which will safeguard any interests of the provinces in the development of power as well as the national interests.
That is the present position, and I submit that it would not have been (possible for the government 'to have proceeded in this matter more rapidly or more effectively in any other way than by the method I have described. Had we met the provinces without referring the constitutional question in the first instance to the supreme court, we would have been in the dark as to what in the event of a submission we might expect. We know now the point at which we are likely to arrive as the result of submission to the court of questions with respect to constitutional rights in the matter of power. But we see no reason why, speaking for the federal government, it should not now be possible for the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of Quebec, with a group of their colleagues, to meet with members of the federal government and, actuated by a desire to remove those differences and uncertainties which make for friction and create doubt as between the provinces and the Dominion, to work out some sort of settlement which will be satisfactory to all concerned. In other words, we are following in regard to Ontario and Quebec the method which we have followed in our dealings with the other provinces of Canada. We have attempted, for instance, to deal with the problems which were uppermost in the minds of our friends in the maritimes by going carefully by direct negotiation into the questions which are of greatest concern to them. We

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
are taking up by direct negotiation with members of the western governments the questions of the transfer of the natural resources which are the outstanding and immediate questions so far as they are concerned. So1 far as the two old provinces of Ontario and Quebec are concerned the question of power development, and the question of the development of the St. Lawrence channel as an ocean shipway, are the matters which are of prime importance, and it as our hope, indeed, it is our expectation, that meeting together with a sincere desire to work out a solution of these problems, we shall be able to find a satisfactory solution.
I	say that with the more confidence because of experiences that we have already had. I referred a moment ago to the dominion-provincial conference held in 1927, at which conference there were a number of very intricate problems. With respect to many of those problems we were able by conference to find a solution to the satisfaction of the governments concerned. With respect to this very matter of power and navigation rights, we were able to make some progress in one important particular. Since the conference was held there has been an agreement with the province of Ontario with regard to the preservation of the scenic beauty of Niagara falls. That agreement involved, in a small way to be sure, but, nevertheless, involved practically all the considerations that are likely to come up in, this larger issue. We were dealing there with international waterways; we were dealing there with power rights; we were dealing there as well with questions that had to be made the subject of agreement with our neighbours across the line, questions which in the long run could be dealt with only by treaty; but we were able by our engineers working in conjunction with the hydro-electric engineers, through goodwill, to find a solution w-hich was satisfactory to Ontario, satisfactory to the Dominion, and satisfactory to the United States, and a solution which I believe will be found satisfactory to this House of Commons when the treaty will be submitted! for approval, as I hope it may be to-morrow.
But there is another reason why we feel encouraged in regard to the matter, and it is this:	Some time ago we drew the attention
of the Premier of Ontario to the fact that the hydro-electric engineers had prepared plans with respect to a two-stage development of the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence different from those of the Dominion engineers, and that as we were 78594-27*
negotiating or expecting to negotiate with the United States in regard to the St. Lawrence Waterway development, we felt if any headway were to be made in this -matter it was important that there should be complete cooperation between the provincial government of Ontario and the Dominion government. I am happy to say that as recently as Saturday last I received from Premier Ferguson a communication in which Mr. Ferguson expresses regret, for reasons which from his letter are obvious, at not having been able to reply sooner to the communication which had been sent to him, and saying that he would be pleased to appoint two engineers, and naming on behalf of the Ontario government two engineers, to meet with the engineers of the Dominion government. This is a first essential step in, settling this phase of the matter as between the Dominion and the province of Ontario. So I say that, to say the least, the signs are propitious.
In addition to that, other matters have progressed which up to the present time have tended somewhat to complicate the situation. One of the most troublesome questions with which the Canadian government was confronted each time a discussion took place on the St. Lawrence waterway was the diversion at Chicago of large quantities of water from the great lakes through the Chicago Sanitary District canal. Well, this much can be said with regard to the Chicago diversion, that more progress has been made in the last four or five years towards getting that matter satisfactorily settled than had been made in all the previous period of the diversion. The Secretary of State for War of the United States, in giving his permit to the Chicago Sanitary District in 1925 to divert a certain quantity of water, did so on the condition that that diversion must gradually be lessened. It provided for a steady reduction of the diversion and for the construction of sewage works and for metering the domestic supply as means of reducing the volume of water withdrawn. The joint board of engineers have definitely ascertained and set forth the effect of the diversion on the levels of the great lakes. That point is now beyond controversy. As a result of the verdict of the United States Supreme Court recently given in the case of the Lake States versus The State of Illinois it has been made clear that the diversion for sewerage purposes does not rest on any legal basis, and it is provided that the Hon. Charles Evans Hughes, as master, is to report on a procedure to be followed which, while according the sanitary district a reasonably practicable time to pro-
420	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
vide other means of disposing of the sewage, will ensure the speedy and continuous reduction of the diversion. Therefore with respect to the Chicago diversion and to the position at Niagara, within the recent past, the situation has materially bettered.
As indicated, we have been seeking to cooperate with Ontario in its power problems, and we have been doing the same with respect to Quebec. The province of Quebec, like the province of Ontario, is interested in power development. The province has certain rights with respect to power developments; we have certain rights with respect to the protection of navigation. In any negotiations with the province of Quebec, and with respect to the approval of any plans which may be submitted by any company holding a charter from that province, we shall take and are taking great care to see that nothing shall be granted to a company or to the province which in any way wild impede or interfere with the St. Lawrence development project, or the full rights of the Dominion in navigation on the St. Lawrence. Viewing the matter broadly, therefore, it would appear as though it required only the good will of all parties interested to work out some agreement as between the provinces and the Dominion which would settle this vexed constitutional problem in a manner satisfactory to all .concerned, and which in addition would enable the provinces and ourselves to take a course which in their interest and the interest of Canada as a whole would be considered most advantageous in negotiating with the United States with respect to further development of the St. Lawrence shipway.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say a word or two with reference to the security of this Dominion in any negotiations with the United States relative to the deepening of the St. Lawrence. Mr. Ferguson, in answer to one or two questions which have been put to him recently, has made a very obvious reply, namely, that for his part he will not, in dealings with the United States, countenance anything which will affect the sovereign rights of Canada, that he will not in the slightest particular part with any sovereign right which the Dominion has, nor will he permit that right to be threatened or impaired in the least. That sentiment will, I believe, be echoed by every individual in this Dominion -certainly in this parliament. I cannot think of an hon. member who would for one moment contemplate any kind of an agreement with the United States which would impair in the least the sovereignty of this country with respect to any rights which it now has. And may I say further, I do not believe the

United States would think of negotiating with Canada on a basis which involved or contemplated anything of that character. However, let me make it perfectly clear that with respect to the St. Lawrence development, whatever steps are taken hon. members may rest assured, and the country may rest assured, that in no particular will any of the severeign rights of this Dominion with respect to power or navigation be impaired in the least, or even be made subject to the possibility of impairment.


Mr. CAHAN:: Does the right hon. gentleman say the same with respect to the rights of the provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would certainly say the same with respect to the rights of the provinces. There is a good deal of what I think might be termed loose talking with respect to some phases of the St. Lawrence development. Why it is indulged in, I am at a loss to understand. I think we would be wise to get at the truth and stick to the truth in public discussion and in the discussion of international questions above all others. For example we hear it sometimes said that under no circumstances should there be permitted an international waterway which will not be an all-Canadian waterway, that so far as the St. Lawrence and great lakes are concerned there must be an all Canadian water route and that on no account is there to be any going 'backwards and forwards as between the United States and Canada. Now, those who speak in that way cannot have the least knowledge-or if they have they are not applying it-as to what is existing at this moment and has existed for years past, and as to what the engineers who have appeared before committees of parliament, and in particular the committee of the Senate to which I have referred, have made very plain, namely, that at the present time the utilized channel through the great lakes and the St. Lawrence is not a channel which is all within the waters of Canada or all within the waters of the United States, but is a channel which part of the way is in American waters and part of the way in Canadian. That is the position now, and in all the development of the St. Lawrence and the Great lakes that has thus far taken place, that fact has been recognized. The United States has taken care of some parts of the channel, Canada has taken care of other parts. Both countries, according to the treaty signed in 1909, have equal navigation rights in the Great lakes and the international section of the St. Lawrence. So when there

St. Laurence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
is a discussion about having an all-Canadian route, let us understand exactly what that means. It does not mean, the construction today of some small portion of a water route in one province or in another, but it means changing existing routes to an extent that, engineers tell us, will involve-I do not know the figures, but the expenditure will run into many millions of dollars.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hundreds of millions of dollars.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That proposal can only be put forward for the purpose in some way or another of confusing the public mind with respect to this great and important project.
In conclusion let me say a further word as to the security of this country in all negotiations with our neighbour to the south, with respect to international waterways or any other negotiations that may need consideration. The St. Lawrence waterway and the great lakes are in considerable part international waters. A broad division can be made. There is a portion of the St. Lawrence which is wholly within Canada, there remains the balance of the St. Lawrence which is in the nature of an international waterway as are the great lakes up to Sault Ste. Marie and beyond. With respect, to the international section, the nation's rights are already secured by treaty, and those treaty rights, both as regards Canada and the United States, are supreme over anything that can be done by the government of either country. The treaty lays down very clearly that any works materially affecting the level of these boundary waters must be approved either (by special agreement between Canada and the United States or by the International Joint Commission. That is under the boundary water treaty of 1909, and it applies to what may be done by the governor in council or what may be done by act of parliament; because a treaty overrides both and is supreme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is a treaty, prior to that in point of time, on which our rights are .based. So I apprehend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I have said, there is a series of treaties; I made that clear at the outset. As regards my hon. friend's remark, I repeat: Every right secured by any treaty will be maintained in any negotiations. Treaty rights are supreme in every respect. But what I am seeking to make clear at the moment is this. The sense of security which this parliament has a right to feel with respect to whatever may be done on the St. Lawrence, whether in the international section or in the national-and I am dealing for the moment with the international-is wholly ample. Our rights in the international section are secured by treaty.
Let us come to the national section. And may I pause here to say a word as to the bill which was introduced by the same hon. member who has moved this resolution- the bill providing for some enlargement of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It is very seldom that on a question of this kind particularly where there has been much in the way of general discussion, the hon. member when he concludes is not followed by some other hon. gentleman in the house. The government had expected, seeing that the subject with which his bill dealt was one that had been considerably discussed in the public prints and elsewhere, that a good deal would be said by hon. members opposite with respect to various phases of the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not on the government side?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government intended to make its position quite clear. But I confess that we were taken very much by surprise when no one followed the hon. gentleman, and therefore no reply was made immediately. A complete reply could have been made in ten minutes and would have avoided the division we bad on that occasion. That reply would have been in effect very much the statement which I am now making. Apart from the fact-and I do not think mv hon. friend relished it either-that in voting for the hon. member's bill he was endorsing retroactive legislation, which I do not believe he likes, every hon. member who supported that bill was endorsing legislation which was unwise in other respects. They were voting in support of a measure which was in no sense necessary to attain the object at which it was assumed to be aimed, and which had it carried would have rendered many necessary developments impossible.
As I have said, in regard to the international section of the St. Lawrence, parliament's security is obtained through the treaty. With regard to the national section, assuming that as a result of anything done in that section the waters which are a part of the international section are raised, such action becomes the subject of review on the part of the International Joint Commission in precisely the same way as if the particular action were being taken in the international section.
Further with respect to the portion of the St. Lawrence which is wholly within Canada, and indeed in respect to all navigable waters, this
422	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Mackenzie King
parliament is already secured in its powers of supervision under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, which gives to (parliament the right not merely to review (but to annul whatever may 'be done by the governor in council should it be shown that in any particular the action taken is unwise. Let me give to the house the sections of the Navigable Waters Protection Act- bearing upon this question. Section 4 reads:
No work shall be built or placed in, upon, over, under, through or across any navigable water unless tbe site thereof has been approved by the governor in council, nor unless such work is built, placed and maintained in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council.
Section 10 provides:
The governor in council may make such orders or regulations as he deems expedient for navigation purposes respecting any work to which _ this part applies or of which the plan and site are approved under any act of the parliament of Canada.
2. The local authority, company or person constructing, owning or in possession of any work shall be subject to such orders or regulations.
I come now to section 12, which is the important provision. This is the section which I wish hon. members to note particularly:
Parliament may, at any time, annul or vary any order of the governor in council made under this part.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Parliament?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, parliament. Subsection 2 goes on:
Any action of parliament in that behalf shall not he deemed an infringement of the rights of the local authority, company or person concerned.
Where then is the need for adding anything further to this particular act? My hon. friend the member for North Winnipeg (Mr, Heaps) asked me the other day as to whether parliament would have the right to review certain matters which might be in contemplation. He has no need for concern as to the powers of parliament with respect to the possible acts of the government he had in mind whether they were of to-day or of six months ago or are still of the future; because parliament, with respect to the protection of navigable matters under the act as it stands, has the power not only to review but to annul whatever may be done by the governor in council. Words cannot be stronger.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: The right hon. gentleman realizes that he is opening up debate on a question already disposed of by the house., and this may involve the house in a rather protracted discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am merely
seeking to make plain the points that bear particularly upon the St. Lawrence water development. I am not dealing with the other question; to that I have referred only incidentally. But this is very material to the question of the St. Lawrence development with respect to the rights of this parliament touching any act of the government, by order in council or otherwise.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would it not be better sometimes not to pass an order in council than to have to annul it afterwards?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has asked a reasonable question, and I am glad that he has done so. There are some matters which are administrative in character and others which are legislative; there are some questions which are technical and which can be dealt with only by experts, and other questions which are suitable for discussion in a deliberative assembly. When one comes to such questions as sites for water-power, the volume or rapidity of water passing over a particular point, the question of the effect of obstructions upon the levels of waters, the effect of the ice flow in certain localities, all of which are important questions when we are dealing with navigation, these questions can be settled and settled only by expert engineers; they cannot be settled in a deliberative assembly. Most questions that relate to public works are of that character; they are questions for the experts bf the government departments; and parliament in its wisdom has made clear that it is not advisable to prevent development by requiring in the first instance that .parliament itself shall perform functions or duties which it is not at all fitted to perform. That is the reason this section is worded in the way it is. In other words, so far as provincial rights may be concerned, what is sought by the Navigable Waters Protection Act is to allow, the full development which provinces may seek with respect to power but where navigation is likely to be affected to assure at the same time that the general interest will be wholly and adequately secured.
May I add just one word. The section which I have read makes it quite clear that parliament has the power at any time to annul any act of the government which may be contrary to the public interest where wc are dealing with works which may affect navigable waters, but in regard to negotiations such as those affecting the St. Lawrence development parliament has a further security. Under our general policy we have laid it down that before a treaty is finally ratified it shall

SI. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Bennett
be. brought to this parliament for approval, and I wish to repeat now the assurance given parliament not once but on different occasions that if at any time, while this administration is in office, a treaty is arrived at between the United States and Canada with respect to the development of the St. Lawrence waterway, that treaty will be brought to thi3 parliament and not ratified until parliament has approved of it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why could not the same
principle apply to any scheme entered into with regard to the development of the St. Lawrence river?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have already distinguished between that part of the St Lawrence which is in the international section and the part which is in the national section. Panliament's ultimate control of both sections is secured under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, while additional security with respect to the international section is afforded by bringing a treaty to parliament for its approval.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am speaking only of the
principle of having parliament ratify something before it is ratified by the cabinet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There again,
as I tried to explain to my hon. friend from Bow River, there are technical features which can be worked out only by engineers. In negotiating an agreement with respect to water-power, water rights and navigation, where the considerations are so largely technical in their nature, parliament is scarcely in a position to discuss such matters in detail; it is for experts to work out these matters.


Edward Joseph Garland: But I am
afraid my right hon. friend is on the horns of a dilemma in this case. If because of a lack of technical knowledge parliament is incapable of arriving at an intelligent decision in the first place, lacking that technical knowledge how is parliament to arrive at an intelligent decision with regard to the annulment of an order in council later?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As my hon.
friend knows, you can present a final plan to parliament, you can have a committee before which you can bring your experts fhlly to explain a matter, but you do not begin a project of development in that way. You could not construct a street railway in that manner. You must have your plans and your agreement practically consummated before they can be properly discussed in an assembly such as this.


Edward Joseph Garland: But the
right hon. gentleman is aware that that is how we have worked in several cases.. For example, when we considered the question of harnessing the tides of the bay of Fundy, we had a committee go into the whole matter and consider all the details. Why not do the same in this case?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think those tides have been harnessed yet.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, but
we have passed upon the plans.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think any plans or details were submitted. However, I wish to make clear the government's point of view, that so far as the St. Lawrence project is concerned, whether it refers to our relations with the provinces or our relations with the United States, this government intends to see that the rights of Canada are fully protected.
Having said that much, Mr. Speaker, may I conclude by reminding the house that in some respects the present moment is perhaps a critical one at which to discuss an international matter which affects our relations with our neighbours to the south. I do not wish to discourage discussion in any way; in fact I welcome all that may be said, but in debating this matter I hope hon. gentlemen will bear in mind the fact that whatever is said in this parliament at this time may have a very far-reaching effect upon some decisions which may be reached in the veiy near future with regard to matters which are of real concern to both countries. With that one word, which I think it well to say at this time, I will conclude my remarks.


Mr. CLARK:: What is critical in the situation with regard to the United States at this time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to
observe that it is somewhat strange that a matter of such transcendent importance to the people of Canada should be now discussed by the Prime Minister on the resolution of a private member. The policy of the administration with respect to a matter of such far-reaching importance should have been stated on an occasion when there w'ould be ample opportunity for debate altogether apart from the resolution moved by a private member which only expresses his opinion with respect to the subject matter of the discussion
We advised the government last year not only in this but in a similar matter as well that any reference to the Supreme Court of
424	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Bennett
Canada with respect to any matter in the form of questions amounted to nothing more than obtaining the opinion of the law officers of the crown. The Privy Council has so stated, and in a judgment of Right Hon. Mr. Justice Duff, speaking for the Supreme Court, be indicated that their decision was based on that view. It must be remembered also, as Lord Loreburn observed, that the legislative always controls the executive branch of government, and I take it that the right hon. gentleman, in seeking a reason for the attitude of the house the other evening, will find it in that sentence, "The legislative always controls the executive branch of government." This' house has lost confidence in the way its executive has dealt with the water powers of the St. Lawrence river. We know from the public press, from the discussions of gentlemen who support the government and from the different opinions expressed privately, not to me but to others, by members of the government itself, that this house has good reason to express its loss of confidence in the way the government, as a government, is dealing with the problems connected with the St. Lawrence waterways. That is the real reason why this house voted the other evening as it did, because the members realized that iD the exercise of that second branch of the executive s power, namely the legislative branch, they were exercising that power in a manner inimicable to the public interest of Canada, or at least in a manner that threatened to be so.
When the right hon. Prime Minister refers to the question of retroactive legislation he realizes that it was retroactive to the first day of this year, 1929, a not unusual thing with respect to legislation similar in character to that particular legislation, because it was felt that if matters of such transcendent importance as the utilization of the St. Lawrence river for a ship-way, with the incidental development of power, were to be considered as they should be considered, then it would be better to present them for the approval of parliament rather than have the government commit this country to a certain line of action and then later say we may annul it. I wonder which is the worse retroactive legislation, which would permit a private company after expending say $25,000,000, have its rights cancelled and the payment of damages demanded. Is that what the Prime Minister means when he refers to the Navigable Waters Protection Act and says there is power contained therein to annul an order in council after it has been enacted, after rights have been acquired under it, vast fMr. Bennett.]
expenditures made, and securities issued under it, held in every part of the world? Does he say then that this parliament can annul it? Could anything be more ridiculous than an observation of that character? Could anything be more in keeping with the idea that is at the basis of our institutions, namely, that nothing of that sort can be done unless compensation is paid?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend knows the section of the act which
intimates that damages cannot be claimed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am coming to that.
What the right hon. gentleman is endeavouring to do is to make it impossible for anyone to finance any undertaking based upon approval being given by this government, if it is covered by the Navigable Waters Protection Act. What will the life insurance companies, who are told these securities are trustee securities, say when they are told that this parliament has the right to annul under this act, the order in council under which an undertaking is commenced and render the securities valueless without compensation?


Charles Avery Dunning: They have been doing it for years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Annulling them?


Charles Avery Dunning: Selling the securities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It has been the law for years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the simple and
obvious reason that never in the history of our parliament has any such matter been submitted to parliament. It has been suggested by the Prime Minister that there is power under the act to destroy that which the executive has done. This involves consequences most far-reaching, but I am content to leave it at that for it is not a matter of importance at the moment. I will only say that the Prime Minister of Canada has suggested that when his executive gives approval with respect to any given undertaking that may interfere with navigation or otherwise, or where powers are called into operation, by reason of the provision of the Navigable Waters Protection Act this parliament may annul it and destroy it without compensation being paid the security holders.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not my
suggestion, it is a statement of law.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is suggested in
order that hon. gentlemen who have raised certain questions may ease their consciences by saying that this parliament can do something which this parliament has never been asked to do, and which I cannot think this

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Bennett
parliament would ever consider doing, for the simple and obvious reason that it is provided in the constitution that there can be no exercise of any such power. This country cannot now undo that which has been lawfully done. Daniel O'Connell once said, " Parliament is omnipotent." Parliament might have the power to annul an order in council, but the exercise of that power would absolutely destroy the credit of Canada.
I wonder if the right hon. gentleman recalls the difference between what was sought to be done in the power case and what was done by his illustrious predecessor? Certain railway interests made an agreement with Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government, whereby the government parted with the gold-bearing lands of the Yukon subject to the approval of parliament. The House of Commons gave approval to that agreement made by the then Minister of the Interior with the Mackenzie and Mann interests, but the senate threw it out. No man will say that that was not a proper exercise of power at that time, but the problem that confronts this house, to which the right hon. gentleman has referred, whereby this country can no longer safely continue to rely upon the sound exercise of its powers by the executive on its legislative side, is entirely different. It was only a few short years ago that this country resounded with cries uttered by the right hon. gentleman and those who sit beside him, about orders in council and government by orders in council. There was not one part of this country where the supporters of the right hon. gentleman did not go decrying orders in council. The Seven Sisters falls has been parted with by an order in council; there are the St. Lawrence orders in council; and an enormous part of the public domain in Alberta has been parted with for the purpose of grazing lands for a period of twenty-one years under orders in council. These grants were made in areas withdrawn from settlement, but if the government continues to part with these lands the western provinces will find themselves without public domain; the Dominion government will have parted with all the crown lands before they are transferred to the provinces. That is the position.


Charles A. Stewart: Will the
hon. gentleman name any sections of Alberta that have been granted by lease and that were not formerly under lease?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I refer to those areas
that had lapsed, south of Medicine Hat, in which a gentleman from Windsor has been very active and about which I trust this house will be fully informed at a later date.
Section 12 of chapter 140 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, reads as follows:
Parliament may, at any time, annul or vary any order of the governor in council made under this part.
That is, under the regulations.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The second part of the section reads:
Any action of parliament in that behalf shall not be deemed an infringement of the rights of the local authority, company or person concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: Part 1 and part 2 are distinctly set out; one deals with public works and the other with marine and fisheries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The section says, " shall not be deemed an infringement of the rights of the local authority, company or person concerned." That is, if the government acts under this section it shall not be deemed an infringement of the rights of the local authority. The right hon. gentleman has read it entirely erroneously.


Charles Avery Dunning: Any annulment shall not be an infringement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Shall not be deemed to be an infringement; therefore, their vested rights remain.


Mr. CANNON:: My hon. friend is arguing for the other side.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am presenting both sides, certainly. I will say very frankly to the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) that I do not believe the Dominion of Canada ever placed upon the statute books a statute which would enable public works to be destroyed without compensation and thus ruin the credit of Canada. The hon. gentleman has surely followed what was said. I said that if the suggestion made by the right hon. the Prime Minister is sound, and in which the Solicitor General concurred, that this parliament could annul an order in council granting approval to the erection of works in the St. Lawrence, it would destroy the securities if no compensation were paid. I am content to leave it at that. I say that parliament never intended to have placed upon the act the construction which has been placed upon it by the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister.


Lucien Cannon: What about the other argument?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say the other argument is a sound argument; parliament never in-
426	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Bennett
tended to destroy rights created under an authorization that had been given and before such authorization had been annulled.


Lucien Cannon: What is the hon. gentleman's opinion?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was presenting the fallacy of its being suggested that this parliament should nullify the consent given by the executive, and I was content with that. However, at the moment I will adopt the language of Mr. Gladstone, which was that he would not prescribe until he was called in. I can only say that if the right hon. gentleman continues the course that has been indicated this afternoon, it will not be long before we are called in.
The question the right hon. gentleman has discussed this afternoon is a question of profound importance to the Canadian people. It is correct to say that for more than a quarter of a century it has engaged their attention. It is also important to point out that under the treaty of 1909, upon which such stress was laid, we have the old story of an even numbered tribunal, and all the consequent results that follow from that. I think the right hon. gentleman is right in saying that it is not desirable at this time to discusss this matter at length. I quite agree with him that there are reasons why it might well be discussed on some other occasion, and that is the reason why I had hoped that, rather than on the motion of a private member, the government itself would declare its policy as it has done this afternoon.
The rights with respect to the international section of the St. Lawrence river are determined by a treaty entered into between Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, and the United States of America. Those words we may modify and we may affect by a new treaty. At the moment that new treaty has not been negotiated. The right hon. gentleman in his correspondence has indicated to the United States that we are prepared to enter into a discussion and to negotiate a treaty dealing with power rights and navigation rights on the St. Lawrence river.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think I went quite as far as that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, the correspondence of last year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, if my hon. friend looks at the correspondence, I think he will see that the government asked the United States whether a certain basis would be acceptable as one for negotiation. The United States has replied that it will be.

Since then no further communications have passed, and it was made quite clear that no final answer would be sent until after a conference had been held between the provinces immediately concerned and the Dominion government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I have said is wholly consistent with what the right hon. gentleman observes, except that he has overlooked this, namely, that we stated that we were prepared to enter into discussions with respect to the matter with the United States of America, but that pending the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, those discussions could not be carried forward. That is the sense of the note which the right hon. gentleman sent to the United States, he made it quite clear-and it is a matter which should be made quite clear-that until there was a final determination either by negotiation and ratification or by judicial interpretation of the rights between the provinces and the Dominion, the Dominion would not enter into a treaty that might thereafter be found, in a concrete case, to use the language of the judgment of the court, to be wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Dominion. That is the position -which the right hon. gentleman's note indicated the executive took. That is a position from which this afternoon he has not departed, but to which he has added this, that now the. judgment of the supreme court has been delivered, which judgment indicates that the questions are incapable of being answered, and that, if answered, are no better than the opinion of the law officers of the crown the Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) being one of them, those answers are no more important than opinions of the Attorney General and Solicitor General of the country. From that we may fairly judge the value that attaches to them, and it is very important that they should be so considered. That being so, the right hon. gentleman now says, and says very properly: I do not propose to appeal to the privy council. The judgment of the supreme court, which is indefinite in some respects and definite in others, is a judgment from which no effort will be made to appeal. That is, no application will be made for leave to appeal to the privy council, and that being so, the judgment may be taken as final and: conclusive so far as it is possible for a judgment of the supreme court to be final and conclusive.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are
answering questions.


Lucien Cannon: It is not a judgment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "judgment" is used in our courts with respect to it. It is

St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Bennett
nothing more than answers to questions, which answers are made a judgment of the court, based upon the opinion of the judges for giving the answers that are given. In the privy council as in the supreme court, the judgments thus given, the word "judgment" being used in that respect, are published in the law reports of the country. Many of the questions, notably in the companies' reference and the ones with respect to fisheries, were questions in which judgments, so-called, were given by the privy council, and the questions were answered in some instances categorically, and others in the sense that because of their vagueness, they were incapable of being answered. The closing words of Mr. Justice Duff in this case are as follows:
It is important, also, since the opinions evoked by such questions "are of course", as Lord LoTeburn states in the same passage, "only advisory, and will have no more effect than opinions of the law officers", to observe that, when a concrete case is presented for the practical application of the principles discussed, it may be found necessary, under the light derived from a survey of the facts, to modify the statement of such views as are herein expressed.
I regard those last words as being words fraught with many serious consequences to this country. They at least support the position which we suggested to the government the year before last in connection with another matter. In other words, the supreme court says: When a concrete case arises, it may be necessary from a survey of the facts to modify the statement of such views as are herein expressed. Those words are very serious-to modify the views herein expressed. The opinions of the supreme court, therefore, so far as we are concerned, may be taken as having no particular or peculiar value and do not illuminate the dark recesses of our minds with respect to the complex problem with which we have to deal.
I am not going to make complaint of the government's action in this matter except to say that I do not think they did what the provinces suggested might have been done. It will be recalled that counsel for the provinces suggested that counsel for the Dominion along with themselves might attend before the supreme court and have a preliminary discussion looking to the formulation of questions, the answers to which would be illuminating and guiding. Counsel for the Dominion did not attend.


Lucien Cannon: There were no fewer than two conferences.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking about attending before the court.


Lucien Cannon: How could we hold a conference before the court?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was just what was
suggested.


Lucien Cannon: The judges of the court said that they had no power to amend the questions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, because they were submitted by the executive. It is perfectly true that conferences took place in the offices of the law officers; but on the suggestion of a discussion in the court rather than a conference, counsel for the Dominion did not attend. At least Mr. Rowell and his associate were not present on that occasion and nothing further was done with regard to it. My only complaint in that regard is, that it would have been much easier to have the provincial viewpoint submitted to the court in the form of satisfactory questions than to have formulated those questions in the final form in which they were and which, in the judgment of counsel for the provinces, did not properly place the matter before the court. That is the position taken, rightly or wrongly, by counsel for the provinces.
As regards the answers to the questions in the form in which they were submitted to and considered by the court, it would not require a highly skilled lawyer to say there was not much doubt the court could not answer categorically the questions submitted to it.
My first complaint is that the provinces and the Dominion are now being asked to get together instead of having been invited to get together in the first place for the purpose of just such a conference as the right hon. gentleman now suggests in order that the questions submitted might meet every viewpoint proposed by the provincial authorities. Had that conference been held in the first place, we could have avoided the language of the jurgment, namely, that the court may modify its present opinion in the light of concrete facts. Those words detract so seriously from the value of the judgment that I consider it is of little value. If the court reserves the right to modify, vary, amend, change or alter its opinion because of further light and knowledge and concrete facts that may arise in any particular instance, the value of answers thus given I consider to be very slight.
The next point to which I desire to direct attention is that it is clear .that a treaty can be made only between the Dominion and the United States and not between the provinces and the United States. It is of the utmost importance that whatever is done in any
428	COMMONS
St. Lawrence Waterway-Mr. Bennett
negotiations that are carried on looking to that end, should, as the Prime Minister has now said, embody as far as possible the views of the provinces when the federal executive is presenting its views to the United States.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just at this
stage I should like to make mention of a point my bon. friend began to develop when he was interrupted. As I gather it, the impression in his mind is that before we had intimated to the United States that a conference with the provinces would be necessary at the outset we had indicated to the United States that we were prepared to make an agreement. What I wanted to make clear to my hon. friend was this: Our position with the United States all along has been that we could not even discuss a treaty with them until the provinces had been called into conference with ourselves, but that before we called the provinces into conference with ourselves we wished to find out what would be an acceptable basis of negotiation. We have given no final undertaking to enter into a treaty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If for a moment my
right hon. friend suggested that I had assumed he made any binding agreement to enter into a treaty, I relieve his mind at once; but I do submit that what he has done by the notes that have passed between his government and the government of the United States was to say that we were prepared to enter into negotiations, but that there were certain preliminary difficulties as between the provinces and the Dominion which we proposed to refer to the courts of the country for determination, and that they must first be disposed of before we would know how far we ourselves could go in making a treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Even before
the constitutional question came up, we indicated to the United States that we would wish, before entering into a treaty, to have the provinces confer with us.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The notes themselves
give the exact language, but as they are not before me I cannot refer to them. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister indicated in his notes that he proposed that the constitutional position of the Dominion with respect to the provinces should be settled before a treaty was negotiated, but that the Dominion was ready-that was the whole essence of the notes-to enter into discussions looking towards the making of a treaty. I think that is as far as it went.. That being so, the question as to the rights of the Dominion and the rights of the provinces became of para-
mount importance. The provinces claim to own the bed of the streams, and the Dominion claim the right of navigation. To what extent the right to develop power may be a right that belongs to the provinces, in view of their alleged ownership of the water, or to what extent the power may belong to the Dominion, the question also as to the right of the Dominion to claim ownership of the power as being ancillary only to the control of navigation, are questions to which the government sought an answer, and as to which the Prime Minister said his government had not received a final determination. Because of the uncertainty in which the matter is now left, it is my judgment that it would be desirable to have first, action taken by the provinces and the Dominion that will lead to a determination of the rights in question, and, second, ratification by the proper authorities of the relative rights of the provinces and the Dominion. I wholly agree with what has been said by the Prime Minister this afternoon, namely, that before any final determination is taken even to negotiate with respect to matters of this kind, there must be, by agreement, or by judicial determination, an exact delimitation of the powers of the provinces on the one hand, and of the Dominion on the other. That is what I apprehend to be the position, and I think with that every Canadian must be in accord.
But I would remind the right hon. gentleman that it is not quite accurate to say that the provinces of Ontario and Quebec alone are concerned. I think on mature consideration the right hon. gentleman will agree that a matter that affects the national life of the country and involves, it may be, our national honour by treaty obligation, and which must affect, as it does, the western provinces, for if the shipway is to have the value that has been mentioned in times past by successive commissions and advisory councils, then indeed those who live in the western part of Canada, as well as those who reside along the lake front in Ontario and along the river front in Quebec, must be vastly interested and concerned about the ultimate result.
I am not going to do more than say this: The obligation for the formulation of any policy which results in a treaty rests with the government of the day. That is clear. It is not the function or the duty of an opposition to indicate what its views may be with respect to the matter for that responsibility rests with the administration of the day. The Prime Minister has conceded that no acceptance of that responsibility translated into concrete action will be made ef-

Chignecto Canal-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
fective unless this parliament approves. That is all this parliament might reasonably ask, namely, that before this Dominion is committed by its government to any treaty obligation the people of Canada through their representatives in parliament shall have an opportunity to express their views as to whether the treaty thus made is desirable or not.
With respect to the other matter, the question of the relative rights of the provinces and of the Dominion, it is reasonably clear in the light of the opinion to which I have referred, in its closing words, that unless the provinces have themselves agreed with the Dominion that certain action shall be taken, and indicated the form which that action shall take, then indeed a treaty otherwise negotiated and approved by this parliament would be but an invitation for future difficulties and troubles. How that approval by the provinces is to be taken, whether by resolution of their legislatures or otherwise, is not a matter that for the moment I shall discuss. It will be remembered that in the United States constitutional amendments require the various states to give their approval separately, as well as the congress of the United States. This matter affects not one province or two, but every province of confederation except British Columbia-it does not directly affect the maritime provinces, but in another sense it does, because ' if the ship-way is of the value that has been indicated in times past, it will enable them to move their products to central Canada by water rather than by rail-with the exception of British Columbia every province is vitally interested, and when the right hon. gentleman made his reference to two provinces, I presume he will modify that view to the extent of saying that all the provinces that might be interested would have the opportunity of expressing their views with respect to any arrangement that might be made.
I hardly think it was necessary to make the closing observations that he did, that any treaty negotiated would protect the interests of this country, and that it was proposed to see that it did so, because no government would endure in Canada, whether a Liberal government, a Conservative government, or some other form of government, that did not protect the interests of the Canadian people. The whole point of difference is whether or not, in the opinion of the majority either of the members of parliament or of the electors, the measures taken are measures that do adequately protect the interests of the people as a whole, and in the end the people determine that question. The government obviously must be assured that the measures they take shall be in the best interests of the Canadian people, unless it be that in this case the right hon. gentleman should suddenly change his mind and find evidence of a " thoroughly vicious principle," and come to the conclusion that the course he now proposes to pursue is one which he will then amend and change, as he saw fit to declare with respect to another matter the other day.


Mr. McMILLAN:: I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Langton Church: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, and after having discussed this matter with the leader of the opposition, who I think is quite right when he says that it is the duty of the government of the day to find a solution for this great national and economic problem-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I understand the hon. gentleman is going to ask leave to withdraw his motion. If so, he must not engage in a debate, because there is another motion before the house.


Thomas Langton Church: I ask leave to withdraw my motion, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: There are now two motions before the house.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not want a political football made of this question.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) shall have leave to withdraw his motion?
Motion withdrawn.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the *house that the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) shall have leave to withdraw his motion?
Motion withdrawn.


PROPOSED CHIGNECTO CANAL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. ROBERT K. SMITH (Cumberland) moved:
Whereas in the year 1870 the federal government appointed a canal commission to report on proposed canal works in Canada;
And whereas said commission reported in 1871, dividing the proposed works into four classes and set forth "that all the works under the head of first class are really of so great importance and so essential to the welfare and prosperity of the whole country that they should be undertaken and proceeded with";
And whereas the proposed canal across the isthmus of Chignecto was placed in category of one of the first class projects;
430	COMMONS
Chignccto Canal-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
And whereas the said proposed canal across the isthmus of Chignecto is the only proposed canal undertaking of the first class that has not been proceeded with;
And whereas said undertaking is of great importance and essential to the welfare and prosperity of the whole of Canada;
Resolved, that in the opinion of this house, it is advisable that the government of Canada take immediate steps to further investigate said project as to feasibility, cost of construction, economic and national advantages to be gained bv the construction of a ship canal across the isthmus of Chignecto to connect the waters of the bay of Fundy with the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence and further that the government be urged to make these surveys and investigations with the least possible delay;
And that when the surveys, estimates as to cost of construction and economic and national advantages are satisfactorily established the government should take the necessary steps to proceed with the construction of said canal at the earliest possible date.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution it is my intention to approach the discussion of it in the nature of a broad, national project. I am urging the government to investigate the matter in connection with the proposed construction of a canal across the isthmus of Chignecto, joining the waters of the bay of Fundy with the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence, for the benefit of shorter, cheaper, safer and more advantageous transportation facilities from the national viewpoint.
May I first give the house a brief outline of the historical aspect of the undertaking for the purpose of refreshing in the minds of some hon. members the unwarranted delay of governments in the past in regard to its construction. Before, however, going into that phase, may I point out the geographical location. In this connection I have distributed on the desks of the members a rough sketch showing the saving in distance from many points in Canada to places inside as well as outside our country. The isthmus of Chignecto connects Nova Scotia with New Brunswick, and is about eighteen miles from water to water. The proposed canal route through the isthmus would pass through a soft clay soil, with less than one mile of rock formation, and that of a loose, gravelly content. The location, from the standpoint of dredging, excavating and cost of construction is about as ideal as could be found anywhere, using for some distance the channels of small rivers and lakes, and the engineering difficulties so far as I know present no serious problems. But I feel that that is a matter which I am not qualified to go into at this moment. It is a matter for thorough investigation and modem expert opinion. Surveys for the proposed canal were made as far back as 1825, over one hundred years ago. Several surveys have been made since that

time, I believe five in all. A resolution that I shall read to the house in a few minutes will give a clear outline on that point.
May I say that when the conferences preceding confederation were being held in Quebec and Charlottetown this question was discussed, and the impression left with the delegates from the maritime provinces was that this would be one of the transportation services that we would secure on entering confederation. Senator Dickie from Cumberland and Senator Botsford from Westmorland frequently testified to this point.
In 1870 a royal commission was appointed by the then government, consisting of Sir Hugh Allan and1 others, and that commission recommended to the government of Canada that it proceed with the least possible delay to construct certain specified canals, which they classified in the order in which they were to be built, and I am happy to inform the house that the so-called Baie Verte canal across the isthmus of Chignecto was placed in the list of first-class canals to be constructed without delay, but I am unhappy to say that it was the only one of the first-class canals projects so reoommended that was not proceeded with. I wish to quote some findings of the commission touching on the matter of the construction of the Baie Verte canal. Before doing so may I say that this was a royal commission composed of the most representative commercial men of Canada selected from the _ various provinces. The Baie Verte canal, after full inquiry and examination, was placed by them in the first rank of canals to be constructed by the Dominion government. The following is extracted from the report of the commission submitted to the government of the day:
The growth of intercolonial trade depends on cheap transit, since the merchandise passing between the maritime provinces and Ontario must be of a bulky character, requiring large vessels and rapid dispatch to be really profitable. When a propellor can go direct with a cargo of coal, or other produce of the eastern provinces, to Kingston and Toronto, and there get a return freight of flour, barley and other western produce, intercolonial trade will have entered on a new era.
When Nova Scotia coal of the best description can be supplied abundantly and cheaply to -western ports, a great impulse will necessarily be given to the transfer of the trade of the St. Lawrence and lakes to screw steamers, a transfer already taking place as we have previously shown.
With the canals enlarged, coal freighters would be reduced to the minimum point-a lake propellor would always bring back from the lower ports a cargo of coal, rather than come empty-just as the English timber ships have been accustomed to bring the same articles instead of ballast.

Chignecto Canal-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
Inseparably connected with the growth of intercolonial trade is the construction of the Baie Verte canal across the isthmus, connecting the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The advantages that must accrue, not merely to the Dominion as a whole, but to the commerce of the maritime provinces, are so clearly pointed out by the boards of trade of all the leading cities of Canada, and by men interested in the development of our commercial interests,-hot simply the merchants of St. John and other places in the locality of the proposed canal, but merchants of Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec; that it is superfluous for the commissioners to do more than briefly refer to a few salient features of the scheme.
Charles Avery Dunning: May I interrupt my hon. friend to ask what commission he is referring to and what is the date of the report?


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: The commission headed by Sir Hugh Allan, which was appointed in 1870, and reported to the government in 1871.
Quoting further the report says:
A steamer laded with flour for St. John, N.B. now goes down the gulf as far as Shediac, where the cargo is transported by rail to its destination. The total distance by water from Shediac through the Gut of Canso and around the coast of Nova Scotia to the bay of Fundy as far as the commercial capital of New Brunswick is about six hundred miles, and the consequence is that there is little or no direct communication between the bay of Fundy ports and those of the river St. Lawrence. By a canal through the isthmus the distance from Shediac to St. John will not be much more than one hundred miles.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, the government of the day decided to proceed with the con* struction of the canal. His Excellency Lord Dufferin, at the opening of the session of 1873, in the speech from the throne used the following language, which may be found on page 2 of the parliamentary debates of that year:
I am glad to inform you that plans and specifications for the enlargement of the Welland, and the construction of the Baie Verte canal, have been completed, and that the works can now be put under contract. The surveys for the St. Lawrence canals will, I am assured, be finished in time to commence the works at the beginning of next year. This will insure the completion of all these great works at the same period.
In accordance with the promise thus given in the speech from the throne $1,000,000 was placed in the estimates that year for the construction of the Bade Verte canal which, according to the late Mr. Page's estimate of the line surveyed by Messrs. Gzowski and Keefer, was to cost between seven and eight million dollars.
In 1875 another commission was appointed, with the late Hon. John Young as chairman.
The report made by this commission was unfavourable. The Hon. Joseph Lawrence, however, one of the commissioners, protested against the verdict of the majority and in a separate minority report ably defended the commercial prospects of the canal. After a complete and thorough survey of the whole matter he summed up his conclusions as follows:
Having given to the trust delegated to me, as one of the canal commission of 1875, the most careful and studious attention, I would recommend to the government, in the interests of the Dominion, the construction of a full tide canal, of the size designated in this report, believing it to be adequate to all the exigencies of commerce, at least for many years. It is a matter, however, meriting the consideration of the government, as to whether the suggestion of Professor Hind, for a tidal highway, might not be adopted, for, should it be found not to meet the requirements of trade, it could be made into a canal.
It is a work which Sir Hugh Allan, Gzowski, Calvin. Gavreau, Jardine, Shannon and Keefer declared "was essential to give unity and completeness to the canal system of the country, and was Canadian in design, and must prove national in its results." With my colleagues. I most cordially join in "the hope that the existing depression in business will prove temporary, and that with increasing population, and the extension of the industry of the country, the progress of the future will be equal to the past, and this will be greatly stimulated by the cheapening of transit from all points of the interior to the consumers of the east, and to the ports of shipment to Europe." To the attainment of these patriotic aspirations, what will do more than a connection of the waters of the bay of Fundy with the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence?
In the report of the second canal commission, reporting in 1875, it was discovered that there was an error in the computation of the distance to be saved by the shore cut. The commissioners had represented the distance saved from Montreal to St. John as only 225 miles, whereas it is actually 500 miles, making an error in that respect in their calculation of 275 miles. The prejudice produced in some quarters by the misrepresentation of the distance saved-and hence some of the erroneous conclusions of the report-endures in the east to this day.
With respect to the adverse report, may I point out that certain admissions were made. I should like briefly to refer to one paragraph in this respect. It is stated:
The evidence taken, and the observations which the commissioners have had the opportunity of making, have impressed them deeply with the vast resources of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and the large increase which may reasonably be looked for in their trade and commerce.
May I now quote a rather lengthy resolution which was adopted by the Amherst Board
432	COMMONS
Chignecto Canal-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
of Trade on September 12, 1928, which I think covers quite thoroughly the salient points of this whole scheme:
Whereas numerous surveys of the route to connect the waters of the gulf of St. Lawrence with those of the bay of Fundy by cutting across the isthmus of Chignecto were made between the years 1825 and 1864, and
Whereas at the Quebec conference held in 1864 "it was distinctly understood and agreed" that the carnal would be built if confederation were consummated, and
Whereas in 1870 the federal government appointed a commission of eminent men to examine into the canal projects of Canada, which commission held meetings and examined witnesses in Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Ottawa, Kingston, Belleville, Toronto, Hamilton, London. Stratford, Guelph and Windsor in Canada, and Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Toledo and Oswego in the United States, and received reports from the corporate towns and public meetings, and
Whereas this canal commission reported in 1871 and divided the proposed works of Canada into four classes, and set forth:
"that all the works embraced under the head of first class are really of so great importance, so essential to the welfare and prosperity of the whole country, that they should be undertaken and proceeded with," and
Whereas in reference to the canal across the isthmus of Chignecto the report reads as follows:-[DOT]
"Inseparably connected *with the growth of intercolonial trade in the construction of the Bay Yerte canal, across the isthmus of Chignecto connecting the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The advantages that must accrue, not merely to the Dominion as a whole, but to the commerce of the maritime provinces, are so clearly pointed out by the boards of trade of all the leading cities of Canada, and by men interested in the development of our commercial interests, not simply the merchants of St. John and other places in the locality of the proposed eanal but merchants of Hamilton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec, that it is superfluous for the commissioners to do more than briefly refer to a few salient features of the scheme."
"The total distance by water from Shediac through the Gut of Canso and around the coast of Nova Scotia to the bay of Fundy as far as the commercial capital of New Brunswick is about 600 miles and the consequence is that there is little or no direct communication between the bay of Fundy ports and those of the river St. Lawrence. By a canal through the isthmus the distance from Shediac to St. John will not be much more than one hundred miles. This fact will show the insuperable obstacle that now exists to anything like extensive commerce between Montreal and the bay of Fundy ports of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and the great impulse that must be necessarily given to trade by the opening up of a route which will shorten the distance so considerably, furnish an inland navigation from the Lakes to Boston, and consequently lessen freights between these points.
When we consider the shorter distance and the lessening of insurance in the autumn on account of a safer route than that now taken through Canso and round the Atlantic coast of Nova Scotia, so exposed at certain seasons to fogs and storms, etc. etc.

The lumber and fishery interests of the gulf of St. Lawrence both of the island of Prince Edward, and what is generally known as the north shore of New Brunswick, will also be benefited by their being afforded a safer and shorter route not only to the ports of the bay of Fundy but also to those of the northeastern coast of the United States.
It will enable the valuable stones of the quarries, the olive freestone of Dorchester, the gypsum of Hants and Hillsborough, the grind and scythe stones in the vicinity of Cumberland bay, and as well the albertite of New Brunswick, which is unsurpassed for illuminating purposes, to be transported to the Canadian market from which it is now virtually shut off by the difficulty and cost of transit.
The St. John, N.B. Chamber of Commerce states the benefits arising from the construction of this canal as follows:-
1.	The maritime provinces import, say 700,000 barrels of flour annually, besides a great many other articles of bulky character.
2.	The maritime provinces possess inexhaustible supplies of productions required by Ontario and Quebec.
3.	The chief articles of import from Ontario to the maritime provinces, and vice versa, being bulky, the element of freight forms a large item in their value; hence, any greater facility for transit tending to cheapen the cost must be productive of a greatly increased demand.
4.	This canal would not only afford the desired facility for transit by rendering it unnecessary to break bulk between the points of shipment and destination, but would remove a great barrier to cheap freights by enabling owners of vessels to secure cargoes to Ontario and Quebec and thus build up a mutually desirable reciprocal trade, which may be increased to almost any extent.
And finally the report of the commission in dividing the proposed canals into four classes, put in the first class the following works: - *The Sault Ste. Marie canal.
j?he raising of the lock walls, waste weirs, and banks of the Welland canal and the enlargement of the Welland canal, on the scale adopted for it.
The Ottawa Canal improvements from Ottawa to Lachine.
The enlargement of the Chambly canal on the scale adopted for it.
The deepening of a navigable channel in the river St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal to twenty-two feet at low water.
The construction of the Bale Yerte canal on the scale adopted for it.
The enlargement of the St. Lawrence to the same scale as the Welland.
The improvement of the channel in the river St. Lawrence above Montreal by removing all obstructions in the river and lakes between the several canals, and also at the ingress and egress of these canals so as to give 14 feet of water throughout.
This report was signed by:-
Sir Hugh Allan, of Montreal chairman.
Casimir S. Gzowski, C.E., of Toronto.
D. D. Calvin, Esq., of Wolfe Island, Ontario.
Pierre Garneau. Es., of Quebec City.
Alexander Jardine, of St. John, N.B.
5.	L. Shannon, Esq., of Halifax, N.S., and by Samuel Keefer, Esq., C. E., as secretary.
Whereas every one of the recommendations contained in this report in reference to the

Chignec!o Canal-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
works of the first class have been more than carried out except the construction of a canal connecting the waters of the St. Lawrence with the waters of the Bay of Fundy, and the navigable channel in the river St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal has not only been made 22 feet but has been made 30 feet, and
Whereas there was afterwards placed in the estimates and unanimously voted by parliament the sum of one million dollars towards the construction of this canal, none of which was spent, and
Whereas there has been spent on construction of canals of Ontario and Quebec a sum exceeding two hundred millions of dollars and for repairs a sum exceeding twenty millions of dollars, and
Whereas parliament afterwards resolved to grant one hundred and fifty thousand dollars per year for twenty-five years to the Chignecto Marine Transport Railway Company, for the operation of a ship-railway across the isthmus, none of which was ever paid as the ship-railway project was abandoned before completion, and
Whereas there is more need for the canal to-day than there was in 1871 for the purpose of interprovineial trade and particularly for the conveying of produce from Bay of Fundy ports to the markets of central Canada, including apples from the Annapolis and Cornwallis valleys, coal from the Cumberland coal basin, gypsum from the counties of Hants and Albert, and granite from Charlotte and Shelburne, and
Whereas the construction of this canal would lessen the distance by water from Prince Edward Island to St. John, N.B., by nearly 400 miles and would give potatoes and other products of that island much cheaper rates by water transportation particularly to the ports of the United States along the Atlantic seaboard, and
Whereas it would largely increase the trade of the eastern ports of New Brunswick and also increase the fishing industry of the gulf of St. Lawrence, and
Whereas it would lessen the distance by water between Ontario and Quebec and the port of St. John, N.B., by several hundred miles, and provide a coastal trade in which could be used boats which would navigate the canals of central Canada so that goods could be transported without breaking bulk, and
Whereas it would shorten the distance from points in northern Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as well as from ports on the eastern coast of New Brunswick and the ports of the St. Lawrence river to the British West Indies and to Cuba, and
Whereas the total length of the canal would be only about eighteen miles, and would pass, according to the engineers' reports, except for the distance of less than a mile, through soft material.
Therefore resolved the Dominion government be requested to proceed with the construction of this canal at the earliest possible date.
Resolutions similar to this were passed by a number of boards of trade all over the martime provinces; I have some of them here but will not weary the house by reading them. However, I would like to mention one in particular, a resolution passed by the Spring-78594- 28
hill board of trade stressing the fact that the canal would be of considerable advantage to them in the shipment of their coal to Parrsboro then up to bay of Fundy through the proposed canal to the Montreal market.
I also wish to say that a resolution was passed at Halifax last year by the maritime board of trade, a body made up of all the associated boards of trade of the maritime provinces. It is non-political, dealing with various non-political matters and passing resolutions from time to time in favour of or condemning certain projects mooted in the maritime provinces. This project has received the wholehearted support of the maritime board of trade, although I am bound to add that the resolution passed by that body is not so strong as the one I have just read, in that it asks the federal government to investigate, by a survey and by modern, expert engineering opinion, this proposed canal to ascertain if the scheme is considered practicable.
I also have here some correspondence from different firms all over the maritime provinces with respect to the benefits which will be derived from the construction of this proposed canal. Most of the correspondence en-r larges on the matters to which I have already referred, and points out the distinct advantage to the general trade of the three maritime provinces which would result from the construction of this canal. The possibilities of increased trade between the maritime provinces .and the rest of Canada have not been developed in a corresponding or relative measure with the rest of the Dominion, due in part to a lack of adequate transportation facilities and geographical handicaps which place us to-day in a position of inequality since we do not fully participate in whatever measure of prosperity is being enjoyed by other portions of the country. We must remember that from the time of confederation up to March 31, 1928, we have spent $266,828752.80 on the construction, maintenance, staff and repairs of the canals of Canada, while only $1,737,425.10 has been spent in the maritime provinces, on what is known as the St. Peter's canal in Cape Breton. So it does not occur to me that our request at this time is unreasonable or inopportune. I would point out further that when the Bale Verte canal scheme was revived by the Amherst board of trade last year we were delighted with the response from different parts of the country and from the newspapers of Canada. I have not time to read them all, but as an example I wish to quote from the Montreal Herald of July 26, 1928:

434	COMMONS
Chignecto Canal-Mr. Smith (Cumberland)
The memories of most of us do not go back fifty years to the time when the Baie Verte canal project was a live political issue. We venture to prophesy, however, that, before a tiny portion of the next half century passes, the people of Canada will become aware of where and what this canal was and meant. In short, the Baie Verte canal scheme is now re-christened the Chignecto canal proposal, and the maritimes, discarding party politics, are showing a determined spirit to demonstrate to the rest of Canada its advantages and to stir the federal government to father the project.
H. J. Logan is one of the active promoters and one need know nothing more about Mr. Logan than the success of his efforts to revive our West Indies trade to realize that there is likely to be a stirring of the waters in good earnest.
Our readers will want to know what this Chignecto canal project is and means. We cover the subject briefly.
_ Chignecto bay and Cumberland basin give into each other at the head of the bay of Fundy. A fraction over 20 miles separates these waters from Baie Verte, an arm of Northumberland strait. The Chignecto canal will connect Cumberland basin and Baie Verte.
The country through which the construction would be carried on would present no great difficulties, and we believe the cost would be but a small fraction of any one of our other canal expenditures.
We would not be so greatly interested were the idea one that would be of sole benefit to the maritimes. Brief study only is needed, however, to convince that this is not a local or provincial concern, but one of national import.
It would shorten the distance by water from Prince Edward Island ports to Saint John and United States Atlantic ports by six hundred miles, and save the cost of breaking bulk and reshipment by rail.
It would shorten the distance by water from Montreal to bay of Fundy by five hundred miles, and to the West Indies by 400 miles. These distances mean a saving of two days- an important matter.
Apples from the land of Evangeline; coal from Cumberland, and gypsum from Hants; olive freestone from Dorchester; the grind and scythe stones from Cumberland; and albertite, unsurpassed for illuminating purposes, from New Brunswick, could be carried to the markets of central Canada at small cost.
The Saint John, N.B., chamber of commerce sums up the advantages as follows:-
_ "This canal would not only afford the desired facility for transit by rendering it unnecessary to break bulk between the points of shipment and destination, but would remove a great barrier to cheap freights by enabling owners of vessels to secure return cargoes to Ontario and Quebec, and thus build up a mutually desirable reciprocal trade, which may be increased to almost any extent."
Here is something good for the maritimes and for Canada. Every Montreal citizen, no matter what his origin, can give his support unhesitatingly. It is specially a project that the Maritime Provinces Club of Montreal, recently organized, might get behind with all the weight of the great influence of its membership.

The maritimes may count on the unwavering support of the Montreal Herald, if party politics is left out of their efforts to make this dream come true.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland); Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock, I had just concluded reading an extract from the Montreal Herald endorsing this project. In the concluding paragraph it stated that it would give it unwavering support if party politics were left out. I believe that can be answered to the complete satisfaction of all. The resolution of the Amherst board of trade read by me this afternoon was moved by the Hon. H. J. Logan, a recent and very popular appointment by the government to the Senate of Canada. Mr. Logan for some time past has taken a very keen interest in this project and is one of those instrumental in having the matter revived. The project has also been endorsed unanimously by the Maritime Board of Trade, a non-political organization in every sense, representing as it does all the local boards of trade of the three maritime provinces, to the extent of asking the government to ascertain as to the feasibility of the project. Many of the press of all political shades have endorsed the scheme, so that I believe this is one measure of which it can be truthfully said is stripped of all political colouring.
May I, in conclusion, draw to the attention of the house once more the fact that away back in 1871 the project was thoroughly considered by a commission whose personnel was of a highly responsible type of Canadian *citizens of capacity and vision, and after a thorough and most exhaustive investigation they recommended that a canal across the isthmus of Chignecto was a transportation necessity from a national viewpoint, to complete the system of canals in Canada for the purpose of stimulating interprovincial trade, to alleviate existing geographical handicaps and also to promote further our commercial possibilities? Is it not fitting to say now that if there was reason for their favourable recommendations in the seventies, surely after upwards of fifty years progress along commercial and transportation lines, the national advantages and economic necessities are correspondingly greater in these days of speed, short cuts and elimination of geographical obstacles? This canal, if constructed, will not only serve the various interests of Canada I have mentioned, but have a far-reaching tendency to

Chignecto Canal-Mr. MacLaren
stimulate and develop commerce and tonnage through new channels, and develop trade, the greatest benefits of which can only now be visualized but the realities of which may be realized when the project is consummated and in operation.
On the various grounds I have mentioned I appeal to all members of the house to pass the resoluton which I take pleasure in moving, seconded by the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren), asking the government of Canada to further investigate the project with the least possible delay, as to feasibility; cost of construction; economic, provincial and national advantage to be gained; and, when these have been satisfactorily established, that the government take the necessary steps to proceed with the construction of the canal at the earliest possible date.


Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
Cumberland (Mr. Smith) has given the house a comprehensive account of the project called the Baie Verte canal. It is a subject that has been before the house on several occasions during the past number of years; but for various reasons the proposal has not been proceeded with, although, as hon. members will remember, at one time a sum was actually voted for carrying out the work. One important reason for stopping this project was a fantastic proposal to build a ship railway which was actually started but not completed, the result being that the unfortunate, unsuccessful proposal of building a ship railway has delayed the matter very seriously until we have arrived at the present time.
A new interest has now arisen, and a desire is becoming general that this proposal of the Baie Verte canal, so called, be now carried out. The province of Nova Scotia is connected wth the province of New Brunswick by what is called the Chignecto isthmus, which is a narrow isthmus varying from eighteen to twenty miles in width. Were the canal constructed, it would bring into contact two large bodies of water, the strait of Northumberland and the bay of Fundy. It would result in the ports of Prince Edward Island being approximated by some hundreds of miles to ports along the bay of Fundy and ports of the United States. It would also have a similar effect on the ports of the north shore of New Brunswick and the north shore of Nova Scotia, in all those cases there being a saving of some hundreds of miles. It is estimated that, by the construction of this canal, something like 500 miles would be saved in the distance between ports of the river St. Lawrence, Quebec 7S594-28J
and Montreal, and St. John and other ports on the bay of Fundy, and ports such as Portland, Maine, Boston and New York.
There are several outstanding points of interest in this connection. First of all there is the fact that it would be a short canal, being something less than twenty miles. The next point is the cost of construction. The soil can be easily removed and the quantity of rock is quite small. Another point is, in comparison with the short canal, the great saving of mileage between the strait of Northumberland and the bay of Fundy. This motion recommends that a survey be made of the area where the canal might be built, and that a report be made as to its feasibility and whether it would be a sound economic proposition; and should the report be favourable, the motion recommends that the construction of the canal be proceeded with. That seems to me a fair proposition. Personally I believe that such a canal would be of very great service to the shipping trade in that portion of the country, and I trust that the government will look upon this matter favourably and agree to the motion being passed.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Mr. SpeakeT, the
matter of a canal in the location referred to in the resolution of my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Smith) has been, as he has stated, brought actively to the attention of the government during the past year, notably by Senator Hance LogaD, and I have had the advantage of hearing from the senator many of the arguments which my hon. friend has advanced this afternoon and this evening.
The proposal is an old one, dating back to before confederation. I have been interested enough to delve somewhat into its history, and I find that there was a canal commission appointed in 1870 to report on the importance of inland navigation generally throughout Canada, a commission which dealt with the then existing canals and waterways and a number of other projects, including the one referred to in the resolution. The report of the commissioners, which was made in the following year, 1871, recommended this project at an estimated cost of $3,250,000 at that time, providing for locks two hundred and seventy feet in length, forty feet in width, and fifteen feet draught on the mitre sills. In passing, I might remark that in all probability a study would reveal that the dimensions provided for in the report of 1870 would not be adequate to-day. At any rate that question would require very careful examination.

Chignecto Canal-Mr. Dunning


Thomas Cantley: Those dimensions would be useless.


Charles Avery Dunning: From a mere glance at the figures I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend, that they would be useless to provide adequate accommodation under modern conditions. In 1873 a report was made on the project by John Page, then chief engineer of the Department of Public Works, apparently on the same basis of dimensions. He reported the probable cost of the canal to be $7,100,000. The matter was further considered by the government of that time, and a second royal commission was appointed. My hon. friend from Cumberland has referred to that, and has read some extracts from the minority report which was presented by one of the members of that second commission. But the fact remains that this second royal commission, which reported to the Secretary of State on December 2, 1875, stated that it was not in the interests of the Dominion that the proposed canal should be constructed. I shall not go over the ground that my hon. friend covered in that connection. The commission reported, with the exception of one member, as I have just indicated.
In 1882, the company referred to by my hon. friend from St. John-Albert (Mr. MacLaren) was incorporated to construct a marine railway across the peninsula, having as part of its financial basis a subsidy payable by the federal government with respect to the operation of the railway once it was completed. After a somewhat hectic career, this company entirely ceased operations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did a good deal of
work, though, first.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with practically everything that has been said by the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) I am wholly in accord. One of the earliest recollections of my political life was a discussion with a gentleman who represented certain interests that were undertaking to build a marine railway across the isthmus of Chignecto. As a consequence of that discussion I made some inquiries as to how the project came into being, and it was apparent that at one time the country did contemplate the construction of a canal across that isthmus. It was not carried forward. Under modern conditions, with improvements such as we have to-day, it may well be that we can construct such a canal for practically the same cost that was estimated in the first instance.
I saw some of the old ship railway canal construction work last summer, and I took the trouble to learn something of the onetime proposed location of the canal. Certainly it is a problem that has been engaging the attention of men and women from the maritime provinces for a long time as to how the waters of the straits of Northumberland might be connected with those of the bay of Fundy, thereby improving transportation facilities and decreasing the cost of the movement of freight from the lower provinces to the upper provinces and from the upper provinces to the lower, and even to the United States.
The minister has promised to give this matter the attention that has been suggested by the member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) in the resolution, and I think this will commend itself to every part of the country, and I am sure it does to this house. I rather concur with his suggestion that the hon. gentleman withdraw the last paragraph of the resolution, for I am free to say I quite agree with the minister that an antecedent commitment by parliament to any course of action dependent upon a satisfactory report is too vague and indefinite, because what might be satisfactory to my hon. friend to-day might not be entirely so to his successor to-morrow. It might well be that some "vicious principle" would make it inadvisable to proceed with what the government thought to be sound a week before. Judging from the studied care with which the hon. minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) is now observing his reports, I am satisfied that he would not regard it as a "vicious principle" that this work should be undertaken by the Department of Railways and Canals, and not by the department over which he presides.


Mr. A. E. MacLEAN (Prince):: Mr. Speaker,
I think the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith) is to be congratulated on bringing this matter before the house. Of the three maritime provinces, probably Prince Edward Island is the most interested in this project. The fact that the survey was made away back in 1870 and nothing has been done in the meantime to carry out the work does not prove that such a work is not a necessity. As has been very well pointed out, even if it were not a necessity in the past, with the great increase in production of the maritime provinces, with the consequent need of more extended markets at the present time, this work is positively of greater concern to us now than it ever was.
A glance at the map that has been laid on our desks shows that a direct route would be opened up between Prince Edward Island and the ports of St. John and Boston, thus effecting a saving of a few hundred miles and to that extent reducing our cost of transportation and expediting deliveries. To-day we are more handicapped in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick than we have been for a number of years with respect to markets for our agricultural products. The very fact that we are developing our trade with the West Indies and with Cuba makes it all the more imperative that this work should be gone ahead with in order to give us the cheapest transportation possible for our agricultural products, particularly in view of the possibility that the United States may through certain upward tariff revisions which are now pending intimate that they do not want to trade with us.
Cheap transportation is of vital concern to us in the maritime provinces. During the past year we1 had a large surplus crop of potatoes, which are bringing a very, very low price. Last season the Dominion Stores desired to place an order for two hundred carloads of Prince Edward Island potatoes. As hon. members are aware, there are freight zones throughout the Dominion, the freight rates to any particular point varying in each of those zones. As a result of a difference of about five dollars a car, the zones furthest away from the point of destination could not secure any of that two-hundred-car order although the difference in the cost was only 85 per car. That is one case that came directly to our notice last season. Therefore it will be seen what an advantage cheaper transportation would be to Prince Edward Island, for it would give us extended markets, and even $5 per car often means the moving of the crop or not moving it.
438	COMMONS
Chiynecto Canal-Mr. MacLean (Prince)
But in addition to our agricultural markets we require a market for our fish. Probably the best fishing grounds of the whole Atlantic are off our shores. On the north side of the island we have a very important cod-fishing industry, but up to the present it has never been developed in a profitable way. Some day someone is going to wake up to the possibilities of that great industry, and it will be so organized and developed that a larger market will be absolutely necessary for the products of this industry as well as for lobsters, scallops and other sea foods.
Hon. members may be surprised when I state that right in the province of Prince Edward Island if we had a short canal connecting the north side of the island with Northumberland straits it would do more for the province and for its fishing industry than perhaps anything else that we could devise. There is one point between Richmond bay and Bedeque bay where tidewater is only separated by about four miles. A canal cut through that narrow part would allow all the north shore of Prince Edward Island to be in direct communication with railway and cold storage facilities, and with the shipping facilities that the south side already enjoys. I do not know whether this matter has ever before been brought up, but the people of the north side of the province are asking for railway connection. This is one way of solving their problems. Last year the people on the north side of the island chartered schooners and loaded them with agricultural products and sent them an a voyage of one hundred miles around the north cape and down the south side of the island to Summerside habour where the cargo was transshipped to steamers there loading for the southern states. That is a hardship and an expense which the agricultural people of that community cannot bear. Why not investigate this needed work at the same time as the mainland scheme is being investigated. I am throwing this out as a suggestion as to what might be done. We were told this afternoon that a sum of over $266,000,000 has been expended on canals throughout Canada. Not one dollar of that money has ever been spent in the province from which I have the honour to come; and no doubt, as the development of canals throughout the country will continue, Prince Edward Island will be contributing in the future, as it has done in the past, to these public works from which the people in that province have been reaping no benefits themselves. I am offering this suggestion as one which in my opinion should be considered in connection with this project which is before

the house at the present time. The linking up of the north shore of Prince Edward Island directly with the south side will provide facilities which are greatly needed, and if this work of the Chignecto canal goes on we shall be put into close touch with St. John, Boston and other markets. As has been pointed out, this work has been endorsed by the maritime boards of trade and by every public body in the maritime provinces. I feel sure, from what the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has said, that the matter will be given careful consideration, and I trust that at some future date we shall see this important work pushed forward to a satisfactory conclusion.


Thomas Cantley: I
am in full accord with the proposal of the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith). It is true that to-day canals are not viewed as being of that degree of importance which they were fifty years ago. That is due largely to the great improvement which has been effected in railway transportation. Nevertheless, canals have their place, and in that connection I wish to point out, what has already been referred to, that while we in Canada have spent some $260,000,000 odd in canal construction, improvement and maintenance, of that vast sum but less than three-quarters of a million has been spent in the three maritime provinces. In view of that, I submit that the proposal which the hon. member for Cumberland has made should receive the support of all members of the house. I am quite in accord with the suggestion made by the Minister of Railways, that locks such as were considered by the power commissioners who investigated the project would be totally inadequate; they would be useless. If that canal is to be built, the lock would need to be not less than 500 feet in length with at least 25 feet depth on the sills. There is no use proposing or constructing anything under those dimensions, if modem steamers are to go through the cut.


Charles Avery Dunning: Would my hon. friend consider 25 feet on the sills sufficient under modern conditions?


Thomas Cantley: I suggested that as the minimum.


Charles Avery Dunning: I agree with my hon. friend.


Thomas Cantley: They should be 30 to 33 feet. The canal should have locks of equal capacity with those on the St. Lawrence, whatever may be ultimately decided upon.

Chignecto Canal-Mr. Cantley


Charles Avery Dunning: Twenty-seven feet in depth and provision for thirty feet in the locks.


Thomas Cantley: Exactly. Now, I do not think I need say very much more regarding the proposal, in view of the statement made by the minister. I take it he is speaking on behalf of the government, who are prepared to go on with the investigation.
I assume therefore that the mover will meet the minister's suggestion and drop the last clause of the resolution. A good deal could be said on the subject, but I do not think it now necessary.
Reviewing the history of the ship railway which was proposed by Sir Charles Tupper,
I believe, so far as my memory goes, that it was the only project with which his name was associated in the development of Canada which was not carried through to a final and successful conclusion. In my opinion the whole scheme of the ship railway was wrong in essence and principle. I do not think there was any warrant for it; as it would compare in usefulness with a modern canal system such as is now proposed. The proposal, in connection with the ship railway, was to dock the vessels, raise them on a cradle and transport them across the isthmus, the railway for this purpose consisting of four bands of parallel standard gauge track laid with 110 pound steel. The dock was completed on one side and partially completed on the other. The machinery for lifting the vessels out of the water on the southern side was installed. The rails were laid over a considerable portion of the road. Subsequently the whole plant was scrapped; the rails were lifted and most were taken to New Glasgow, where the great bulk of them were re-melted. That was practically the end of the enterprise. As pointed out by the Minister of Railways, some considerable losses were sustained and claims made. The charter was extended on two occasions, but the project ultimately fell through.
I take it that, so far as the present proposal of the member for Cumberland is concerned, the government will see that an investigation is made. What the result will be remains to be seen, but I know that it will be viewed with a considerable degree of satisfaction in the maritime provinces, that an investigation is to be made. I leave the matter at that.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: After the statement by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) as to the attitude of the government in connection with the project under consideration, it is necessary for one to discuss the merits of the question, because that is the very essence of the investigation which it is proposed to make, namely, that the merits shall be thoroughly gone into, the economic situation examined, and all the information brought to bear which would assist in arriving at a conclusion as to the national advantage, the practical utility, and the economic possibility of the scheme.
My purpose in rising is perhaps a very personal one. The project happens to be put forward primarily by the citizens of my native town of Amherst. My hon. friend, the member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith), this afternoon read certain resolutions from the town council of Amherst. This brings back to my mind recollections of early days. Probably I had a more intimate association with the so-called ship railway, or Chignecto marine railway, than even the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I want to tell him that I drove a bread wagon which supplied bread for the navvies who worked on that particular job.
I feel therefore that I know a good deal at first hand about the ship railway. It was with regret to mj'self as well as to the older citizens that the project was discontinued. Let me say for my fellow citizens of Amherst, that they are not the sort of people who just ask governments to do things. The citizens of Amherst are the kind of people who have tried to help themselves. There were a good many industries in that town-flourishing industries which were promoted in no small measure by the money, the energy and the courage of the people of Amherst. It was and is a matter of regret to us all that some of those industries are not in the prosperous condition in which we should like to see them. The citizens of Amherst have received a good many hard blows in connection with development there, but they still look forward and this is a project in which they are taking a real and definite interest. They are going about it in a dignified and logical way, but energetically nevertheless. They are not asking impossibilities; they are asking that the matter be first thoroughly investigated in the light of present day conditions and they are basing their request upon the fact that a great many years ago a commission did make findings favourable to the construction of the canal. There was, as the hon. member (Mr. Smith) has pointed out, a later commission which made a finding rather the reverse of that, and the project was allowed to lapse, whether on account of the proposal of the Chignecto marine ' railway or whether because of other reasons I do not know. However, I feel that with

Chignecto Canal-Mr. Ralston
citizens and public bodies like these asking parliament for examination and consideration it is only fair and right thalt what is set out in the second last paragraph of this resolution should be granted and a full inquiry made. As a former resident of the county of Cumberland. in which is also the thriving town of Springhil'l mentioned by my hon. friend this afternoon, which of course would be interested, and in which are also other enterprising and active towns, I am glad indeed to be a member of the government which undertakes to say that the fullest investigation will be made into this question.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Having received the assurance of the Minister of Railways, I am willing to consent to the deletion of the last paragraph of the resolution, of course on condition that the investigation into the feasibility, the cost of construction and the advantages to be gained by building this canal will be undertaken by the government with the least possible delay.


Charles Avery Dunning: I want it made quite clear that I cannot promise to start to-morrow; my hon. friend- appreciates that fact, but having regard to the other work which the type of men needed for this investigation are presently engaged in, I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that we will get at it as soon as we possibly can, having regard to those conditions.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman cannot amend his own motion. Mr. Barber will move, seconded by Mr. Brady, that the resolution be amended by striking out the last paragraph.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Motion as amended agreed to.

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved:: 
Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to support the motion of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Woodsworth). Perhaps it will be interesting to the house if I quote the epigram to which he has referred in regard to the common and the goose. It is a piece of old English wit that goes back many centuries to the time when the landlords were enclosing the commons. It runs like this:
It is bad enough in man or woman
To steal the goose from off the common;
But surely he is without excuse
Who steals the common from the goose.

Natural Resources-Mr. Bird
The process of stealing the common from
the goose is going on apace in this country. In Manitoba during the last twelve months we have lost one of our most valuable public possessions and neither this parliament nor the legislature of Manitoba were able to make a protest or institute an investigation until the common had been taken away from the goose.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that for any government, no matter whether Dominion or provincial, to give away our natural wealth by order in council is a usurpation of the proper functions of parliament. Why not tax by order in council-why not increase the income tax by order in council; why not increase the tariff by order in council? Why not sign treaties by order in council? Why not legislate by order in council? Why not hand government over to some Mussolini without condescending to call together the representatives of the people? There is no logic or justice in the procedure whatsoever. Why, what is the difference between depriving the people of their property by taxation and depriving them by alienating their natural wealth? There is absolutely no difference in principle. Yet in the one case our whole parliamentary system has been built up on the basis of shielding the people from arbitrary taxation. In the other case, right up to the present time, cabinets in the dim seclusion of the council chamber can give away the people's wealth to the value of hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is a long time since governments attempted to tax the people by order in council. When Charles Stuart.-I mean King Charles Stuart-levied ship money by order in council, it led to a case of amputation in a very short time. I do not want to see the present Charles Stewart suffer anything like the same fate, but there is an execution impending in the province of Manitoba. Surely we are of the same Anglo-Saxon stock; surely the same blood runs in our veins as ran in the veins of Pym and Hampden; surely we are not going to suffer our wealth to be frittered away by a committee of parliament in the recesses of the council chamber without having the opportunity to utter one word of protest.
It may have been a very harmless practice years ago before the people of Canada awakened to a sense of the vast importance of their natural wealth. When a water-power was just a matter of scenic beauty, when an oil field was just a potential sheep pasture, and a pulp forest a muskeg, it die! not matter very much whether our natural resources were administered in one way or the other, there

was nothing very serious implicated; but in recent years, particularly since the war, our natural resources have assumed a value that our grandfathers could not have imagined. We have come to a sense of our advantages as a country. Our national pride is constantly appealed to on the basis of the wonderful wealth that lies to our hands. Moreover, in every farm home, in every labourer's cottage, this sense of our common wealth has raised visions of a higher standard of Canadian life accessible to all, visions of the burden of taxation lifted, visions of domestic drudgery taken away. These visions have arisen in the minds of the men and women of Canada, and I say to this government or to any government, they are risking their very existence by tampering with this God-given wealth which belongs to the ten millions of people of Canada, and not to any government or privileged few. It is the business of governments to see that those visions are materialized, to see that these water-powers, with all this hidden wealth of forest and mine are somehow diverted into the lives of the common people, and not frittered away by unseen and secret methods to the money lords of this country and of the United States. Stripped of its traditional dignity, the government is but a committee of parliament; and I say that parliament is playing with fire when it allows governments to give away secretly the natural wealth of this country. By so doing it is creating forces and setting up influences which some day will turn and enslave parliament itself, if indeed they are not already doing so.
The nearest parallel to what is going on in Canada which I can find anywhere in history occurred about the time that little rhyme originated about four hundred years ago. The people of merrie England in the sixteenth century, in pre-Elizabethan times, owned the commons; an illimitable expanse of fertile land belonged to the inhabitants of England. But at that time the landlords began to absorb that natural resource; they began to fence it in and acquire it. Hence arose the saying that the commons were being taken away from the goose. That was four hundred years ago. As one in whom English blood runs more or less completely, I am always proud to think of old Bob Ket and his brother Bill, who in the sixteenth century rose up in their township of Wymondham in Norfolk, England, and protested against parliament allowing the landlords to absorb the commons. I can picture Bob Ket pulling

Natural Resources-Mr. Bird
down the fences of Sergeant Flowerdew. I can imagine his taking his sixteen thousand tatterdemalions to Mousehold Heath.
Years ago I stood on the very place, of which the immortal Barrow said, "There's a wind on the heath, brother". And there was more than a wind on the heath; there was something more spiritual than the wind that blew. There was something that had been agitated centuries back, and which aill down the centuries had its influence on East Anglia. That is the neighbourhood where Cromwell got his Ironsides to withstand Charles Stuart; and even to this day you can find the influence of Bob Ket working in Norfolk and Suffolk in England, because they dared four centuries ago to stand up against the encroachments of landlordism. The historian Pollock says that these men were all of very simple spirit, religious minded people, and in the manifesto which they made out they told the people of England that they regarded the enclosure of common lands as theft from the community; and they innocently considered that the gifts of God in nature belonged equally to the peasant as to the landlord. That is what these humble people meant in their rebellion four hundred years ago. And they were not left to stand alone. Poor and ragged and simple though they were, we are told that the famous Bishop Latimer stood up and said on their behalf, "These landlords are endosers, grabbers, rent raisers"; and he told his congregation that there was more cruelty, injustice, and pride in the landlords of his day than among the inhabitants of Nebo. I sometimes listen to the modern pulpit, and I think it would be a good thing if it came out of the vacuum which it has created around itself and addressed itself to some of these injustices which obtain in our time, as Bishop Latimer as well as the Roman Catholic clergy and laymen did in their time. In this way the blight of landlordism settled in England and on English institutions and government for the next three hundred years. There was a period of three hundred years of sterility for the common people of England because landlordism was clamped upon the country as we have seen.
Now to-day we are passing through a parallel process. Moneylordism is foisting itself on our free institutions in this country. As president Wilson said some years ago, there has risen up behind the forms of democracy an invisible government; it is the government of money kings, who seek privileges from parliament, whose cupidity has been stirred by the vast natural resources of the country, and who have been encouraged by the servility of governments-encouraged by our system, whereby grants of our natural resources do not come up for consideration by the people's representatives but are passed upon in the secrecy of the cabinet council. I say it is a serious thing for parliament. Parliaments, provincial and Dominion, are creating influences which some day will have them completely in possession, if they have not them in possession at the present time.
Discussion in parliament is the only means by which we can create a healthy public opinion on any question. True, discussion in parliament is not a perfect piece of procedure; we are all guilty at one time or another of indulging in talk which is unprofitable. We all do our best, and we have the best of intentions, but we sometimes waste time and bring this institution into momentary contempt. Nevertheless it is on the floor of the house that public opinion is moulded, if it is moulded at all, in the interest of the people. Oh, you will say, what about the press? What about all the agencies that are at work to build up an enlightened and intelligent public capable of taking care of its own concerns? Surely, it will be said, people do not depend upon parliament so much as they used to. Well, let me tell you of an experience we had in Manitoba with the press in connection with the Seven Sisters falls. In Manitoba we have a great newspaper which laughingly calls itself free. Not Mr. Bracken, but the Free Press is the guilty party. That great newspaper, which has insinuated its way into the confidence of the people in the last few years, and not altogether unworthily, is responsible to-day for Manitoba having lost its most valuable natural resource. Without the Free Press Mr. Bracken would not have had one printed word of support. The Grain Growers Guide, now called the Country Guide, refused to say a word in support of him-one of the most significant things you could think of. But the Free Press, the organ of light and liberty, immediately got behind Mr. Bracken the moment they saw that Mr. Bracken was get-getting behind the Winnipeg electric. The editor of that great journal is a big man with a big brain, which he does not always use fairly and squarely. This gentleman who in his editorials talks in imitation of a Greek oracle; this Manitoba king maker and king-breaker-and I say that almost literally, because I think he would have broken Mackenzie King two or three years ago if he coulfi, and when he found he could not do so he filled his editorials with all the fulsome terms he could get out of the

Natural Resources-Mr. Bird
dictionary-this potentate in Manitoba, with his million dollar press, rides rough shod over every humble expression of opinion in Manitoba differing from his own. A short time ago at a farmers' convention I daied criticize the Free Press, in my humble way; immediately the million dollar mechanism started working and crushed the life out of poor me. That is what we are up . against in Manitoba, a paper which has worked its way into the hearts of the peoiple largely through its own advocacy, but when the people's rights are in the balance it flings itself on the side of the interests.
You say the press is a noble organ of public opinion; we cannot believe that in Manitoba. We leaned on a broken reed and it entered our hands. Like most Manitobans I used to put the Free Press next the Bible and Eaton's catalogue, and thought I was safe both for here and the hereafter. I no longer look at the Free Press in that light; I look on it as the seller of the people's property in Manitoba. Mr. John Bracken was like a fly on the chariot wheel, and the Free Press was the chariot. I honour and respect our journalists, but these joint-stock companies with no conscience cannot be trusted with public opinion. This is the only place to mould public opinion, but we do not get a chance to do so. If we do not try to mould public opinion here; if we do not here try to bring our people to a sense of the value of what is theirs, there are other people on the outside who are doing their utmost to mislead the people.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has mentioned the power trust in the United States. A year ago this month the United States senate began an inquiry into the power trust of that country, and I have here some clippings taken at random, of which I will read only one from the Northwestern Christian Advocate:
The public utilities people have begun a practice which may become a menacing educational custom. According to facts recently brought to light by the federal trade commission, the utility interests have a huge financial interest in opposing the idea of government ownership. And they have gone at the business of opposing it with system, thoroughness and all the money they need.
They have paid out, in the last three years, a million a year to oppose government ownership-and how? By paying fees to men supposed to be impartial. By contributing, $30,000 to the General Federation of Women's Clubs for a "survey". By cooperating, financially and otherwise, with text-book writers, so as to get "bad books"'-that is, books favourable to public ownership-out of high schools and colleges, and "good books" in.
And by contributing sums large and small to colleges and universities for reports, lec-
	g
tures and inferentially for classroom instruction, on the merits of private, and the evils of public, ownership of public utilities.
Then I will add a little extract from a speech by Senator Norris, who said:
Recent developments by the federal trade commission have shown that there is a giant monopoly in the generation and distribution of electric current, gradually spreading itself over the entire country.
It has entered our schools and our homes. It has been working silently and stealthily to poison the minds of our school children. It has entered into the politics of the country from the school district to the White House. It has undertaken to buy seats in the United States Senate. It has made an attempt to control ail the avenues of publicity.
It has even reached its fingers into the church and undertaken to subsidize the men who preach to us from the pulpit on the Sabbath day.
All this came from an official investigation which took place less than a year ago. Organs such as the Free Press will say that we are not like that in Canada, that there is no earthly possibility that the stamp of men we have in Canada will permit that sort of thing to happen. My faith in Canadians is very deep and sincere, but I think we are of no different clay from our brethern to the south ; I believe we are just as susceptible to the almighty power of massed dollars as they are. As soon as it is worth while for the power trusts in that country and this-there is no difference between them- to poison the wells of knowledge and shape the plastic minds of our children to their own doctrines of private ownership and private greed they will do so. There is nothing here which we can do to prevent it; we have denied ourselves the means of preventing it and have closed up the only means of counteracting that poisonous propaganda.
A motion of this kind is highly reasonable; to permit this state of affairs to continue is not good for the people and is not good for the government. There is not one of us here who is not sorry for what has happened in Manitoba; that kind of happening cannot be good for Canada, when governments get trapped in that way and are held up to the contempt of their opponents and of public opinion generally. That cannot be good for Canada, but what was the vicious source of this sort of thing? It lay simply in this outworn system of disposing of our natural resources in the secrecy of a cabinet council. We did think Mr. Bracken sufficiently enlightened so that nothing would prevent him from consulting the people, but he stooped to tradition; he said, "No, this thing is our prerogative and we will settle it behind closed

Natural Resources-Mr. Bird
doors. The people of Manitoba and the people of Canada have no right to look in or protest." I think it most remarkable that Mr. Bracken and his colleagues should have absolutely ignored his friends in this house who, from the very beginning of last session, long before we knew what his policy was, set our hands against this transaction. Petitions were sent to the Minister of the Interior asking that these falls be retained for the public, yet Mr. Bracken and his colleagues went on with their secret negotiations with the Winnipeg Electric Company as though the representatives here did not exist or, if they did exist, their opinions were not worth while. These things discourage and astonish me; one sometimes wonders whether there is a spark of hope for any progress in our public life at all.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I know it will be said of the last speaker and myself that we display a regrettable suspiciousness in regard to our fellow human beings. That has been said already this session; I recall a reference made with regard to the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), who said:
When my hon. friend suggests that the time may come when the banks will have been reduced in number to one, I say that he shows little confidence, little faith in the integrity of the public men of this country in believing that there could ever sit in the great office of Minister of Finance any man who would countenance an amalgamation or a merger unless it were in the interests of the depositors and to prevent raids upon the public treasury.
That utterance of the leader of the opposition was dictated, as I judge, purely by hi3 inborn disposition to preach sermons to other people. Where else did that criticism arise? Here is a gentleman who is drawing a salary to criticize the government; the very logic of his position is that the government cannot be trusted in the way he says it ought to be: Where else can criticism of the government come from except from the official opposition? That is rightly so; but why should we be marked when we express distrust of the government? Is that not the very basis of the development of our British institutions? Do not public men accept it that their whole conduct will be submitted to the clear light of reason? Surely they do; that is the foundation of our parliamentary system. When I seem to cast doubt upon the Bracken government, or upon this government, I must say that I rather hesitate. It is not a popular thing to do, especially with the governments that have been criticized. But on the other hand, here are the people of Manitoba whom I must put in the balance against those who have arrogated to themselves the right to 7S594-29
dispose of the people's natural wealth. It may be against my disposition to cast unjustifiable reflections upon the government, or upon the Minister of the Interior, and I do not go as far as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) went. The Minister of the Interior did say to us quite plainly, before we left for home last session, that he could not hold up this matter until the Manitoba legislature met; he was very frank about that. But if I did not misunderstand him, and there is always the possibility that I might have-I can confirm what I am saying by my own diary, and his words in the house seem to confirm it-he said that before anything was done the members for Manitoba would be consulted. As I say, there may have been misunderstanding, and it is a very critical situation in which to make a mistake, but if the Minister of the Interior draws upon himself widespread suspicion he cannot blame those who are the instruments of diverting it upon him; he can blame only himself for the inconsecutive way in which he carried on his negotiations with us. We representatives of Manitoba had a natural right to expect that he would consult us, not personally but with respect to the position we hold as federal members for Manitoba. We all signed a round robin on the 4th of February 'last saying that the Seven Sisters falls must be kept for the people of Manitoba, and not one Manitoba member withheld his name from that document.


Mr. HOWDEN:: I was not in Ottawa at
the time and I do not think my name was on that.


Thomas William Bird: We can put this beyond per-adventure, because we have the round robin upstairs. I made that statement believing that all our names were on it. But as the months passed on-not years: if it had been years one could have made great allowances because over a stretch of years minds can change a little-some of the staunch public ownership men began to think that after all perhaps they had been mistaken and had signed that petition under false pretences and did not know what they were signing with respect to the Seven Sisters falls.


Mr. THORSON:: What document was the hon. member referring to a moment ago?


Thomas William Bird: If I am not mistaken, it was handed around this house about February 4, long before I knew that Mr. Bracken had any policy at all on the Seven Sisters falls. I learned subsequently that Mr. Bracken did have a policy, and so did other gentlemen



Natural Resources-Mr. Bird
from Manitoba. Somehow or other we in Manitoba, having started a party of a new brand, having originated a political party which was going to be beyond suspicion-
' Mr. HOWDEN: I wish to withdraw my previous statement: I had reference to another document.


Thomas William Bird: I think I can state to the house that I very rarely make statements unless I am sure of their truth; I always do the house the honour of addressing it only when I am fairly well prepared.
As I said, we started out in Manitoba on new lines, as we thought, politically. I am almost ashamed of the number of platforms on which I stood and said, "here is the real thing in party politics." I think I was the only federal member in Manitoba who supported the Bracken government last year. I think I was the only federal member who went out and stood four-square for Mr. Bracken. What had I to say for Mr. Bracken and his government? I said, "here are men who do not say one thing and do another." I said that on every platform in my constituency, and I have made everlasting enemies of some of my supporters.
This is a serious situation, not only for me but for all those who believe that the pursuit of idealism is possible in public life, who believe there can be found an aggregation of men who will go to the country and say, "Here is what we will do if we get into power,"-and mean it. That is the message we had from Vancouver to Halifax in 1921. Mr. Crerar carried the banner of pure politics from one end of the country to the other, and he found an echo in thousands of hearts. But the people now ask if this is the same government they supported in 1922, the government that pledged itself to retain the water-powers for public ownership and then turned around and deliberately handed them over to private interests in a secret session.
It is not an easy matter for me to say the things I have said in the last few sentences, because I have committed myself in the last few years to the notion that idealism is possible in all the ramifications of public life. Some of us have not come into politics of our own intiative: we came from walks of life where we had no ambitions whatsoever, and we were brought into public life with the thought that the avocation we had been following would somehow be a guarantee that through all our public career we would 3tand four-square for idealism in public life. But how are we going to hold up our heads 
again when we remember what has happened in Manitoba during the last few months? How are we going to go on the platforms in our constituencies and face the finger of scorn from every quarter? All these petty things do not count much with the rising generation in the west. It was appealed to in 1922 in Manitoba, not respecting things of petty policy but as regards things that lay deeper down than political policies. Some of us have been called Don Quixotes, and I do not accept that altogether as a criticism; I have gladly tilted at windmills during the last twelve months, especially in my own constituency. Men who were my strong friends, went on one side while I was on the other. The past president of my own political organization to-night is on one side with private ownership, and I with public ownership. Who is to blame? We say: the Bracken government. I have said: the Free Press. I do not know perhaps whether we are justified in saying this or that, but some weakness has crept in somewhere. There has been some blurring of those clean-cut ideas with which some of us came here a few years ago. There has been some giving way, some unconscious forsaking of things we stood for then. I say it with sorrow more than with anger, that somehow or another I have the feeling of being forsaken, not only by the Manitoba government, but in a measure by the federal government, although the federal government, as far as I know, never committed itself to public ownership, and to that extent perhaps, it escapes criticism.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I have listened
with a good deal of interest to the speeches of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) with respect to the motion that they have brought before the house. Anyone who has followed their remarks with any care whatever will note that the whole attack they lodge against the issuing of a license to the Northwestern Power Company is on the basis of their theory that only public ownership should be given consideration. They have said not one word about the contract itself or whether in their opinion the contract is in the interests of the people. They have contented themselves simply with the statement that so far as they are concerned they are against any contract, any arrangement that is not carried out by the government itself or by some municipal corporation.

Natural Resources-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the Minister of the Interior to quote one paragraph of mine that lends any colour whatever to such a statement?


Charles A. Stewart: I am certainly entitled to my opinion. I followed the hon. gentleman very carefully and I have yet to hear him make one complaint other than that he is opposed in toto to private ownership.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said nothing whatever about being opposed to private ownership.


Charles A. Stewart: I must be
given the right to my opinion about what my hon. friend has said. He may have his.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Hansard will show.


Charles A. Stewart: I may be able, as I proceed, to show that what I say is correct. I propose to discuss the contract; I propose to discuss as well' and to show just how impossible the application of a resolution of this character would be to the management and administration of the public domain of Canada that for the time being is under my control. May I recite in the beginning just how much is required of the department and how often we have to exercise our responsibility and, may I say, always under the control of parliament. I have just laid on the table of the house, in accordance with the statute which so requires, a complete resume of all the acts of our department during the past year. They are under the purview of parliament, and previous governments, previous ministers, made the mistake of not taking the precaution by resolution to have the acts confirmed1. We have found ourselves in some difficulty and from time to time we have had to have that remedied. We very frequently have to issue leases for one thing or another. Our sales of school lands are publicly advertised and publicly carried out. Everybody knows about them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The statute requires
publicity.


Charles A. Stewart: Of course. We do not to-day issue a lease for a timber berth without advertising it. The public know all about it, but private parties purchase it. It is true we issue thousands of leases annually for grazing purposes to this individual and the other, without competition, but we do so after we have satisfied ourselves that the applicant is responsible and capable of carrying out his contract. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) will recollect that fer the cancellation 78594-29J
of one of them we had to pay a very substantial sum last year. No longer do we dispose of the domain of the crown; it is all under lease which is liable to cancellation and it is all, at present at least, under the control of the Department of the Interior, the leases being issued by this department. There are quartz mining leases, coal mining leases, leases of every character, innumerable. The question is sometimes asked: Why do we need such a large staff to carry on the work of the department? The reason is that there is a tremendous amount of detail in order to keep a record of every one of these leases, to make the collections, and to do all the work necessary to carry out efficiently the various matters under the control of the department. I am not going to dwell on that because I want to devote all the time I can to a discussion of the particular matter brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am not one of those who have firm convictions one way or another-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: Just give me an opportunity to explain. What I mean is that I am not convinced that all the virtue lies in public ownership nor am I convinced that all the virtue lies in private ownership. I occupy a position where I think I have a fair chance to observe the working out of both systems of handling the public domain, or, if you will, the natural resources. Ontario is making a success of hydro; in Quebec, they appear to be making a success of it under private ownership; at least that is the decision of the government and people of Quebec. They are just as convinced they are on the right track in regard to private ownership as are the people of Ontario in regard to public ownership. The same thing applies to British Columbia and to the maritime provinces. Ontario, although it has hydro, is issuing leases for mines, timbers and water powers and is issuing them by order in council just as this government is doing. Under the direction of the Minister of Mines or whatever minister is in charge, the administration of the natural resources of the provinces is being carried out in this particular way. I claim no virtue, but I challenge my hon. friend or any other hon. member to say that I have not consulted to a greater degree in every respect hon. members who represent the various provinces than are private members of any of the provinces consulted about the issuing of leases in their respective provinces. I have always done that and I challenge my hon. friend again to name any lease of any importance that meant any-
452	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Steivart (Edmonton)
thing by way of public interest or was of a considerable extent in any of the three prairie provinces where the provincial government concerned was not consulted, and in the case of the territories where I did not secure as much information as possible on the subject before issuing a lease and before taking any definite stand in the matter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All I ask is that
parliament be consulted.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my hon. friend give me a chance? He has made some rather scathing assertions with respect to my administration, and I propose to deal with them before I get through.
My hon. friend states that in so far as this particular lease is concerned, it should have been preserved in the public interest. May I just rehearse what has happened with respect to this particular lease? My position has never changed; I believe the lease is a good one. I said so to my hon. friend in my office; I said so to him on many occasions, as well as to other members representing the province of Manitoba; I say so still. I believe it is in the public interest, and I will give the house some of my reasons for saying so.
I have nothing to do with the action of the Manitoba government. I do not know anything about it; I do not know anything about what happened to them or why they are in difficulties to-day. I simply make the statement that I have not changed my mind about this lease, and I still believe it is in the public interest.
If my hon. friend will go back some years -I shall not have time to deal with details- he will remember that the Winnipeg Electric Company was established at Pinawa Falls, on a diversion from the Winnipeg river proper. This government has gone to very considerable trouble to secure for the people of Manitoba and for the city of Winnipeg a complete utilization of the power on the Winnipeg river, and that has not been done without a good deal of controversy. It has not been done without having parted me at least from some of my strongest and warmest political friends in that province who differed with me. I shall not have time to cover the whole details of what happened, but many of the older members of this house will remember the controversy about the Norman dam and as to the preservation of the levels of the lake of the Woods, and in respect to storage facilities in lac Seul in Ontario, to assist power development on the Winnipeg river. Hon. members will remember that there was a good deal of controversy about that.

I do not know anything about the history of the Winnipeg Electric Company. I do not know how they treated the people of Manitoba. They may have treated them very .badly for all I know I do not know anything about the history of the company, but they were established at Pinawa long before I had anything to do with the administration of this department. We were anxious in our scheme for the development of the Winnipeg watershed to scrap the plant on the Pinawa diversion and throw the whole flowage of the river over to the Seven Sisters development, thereby securing for the people of Manitoba and for the city of Winnipeg fifty thousand home power more than could be developed if the Pinajwa plant were continued in operation. That was our first reason.
The Winnipeg Electric Company made first application for the development of the Seven Sisters falls. Later on when the controversy was on with respect to the Manitoba pulp and paper mill, my hon. friends will remember the bombardment to which I was subjected on that occasion, and I want to say again that the Manitoba members stood by me and gave me advice that was very valuable to me, and I think I shall be able to prove that they gave me good advice in connection with this matter. The Backus interests wished to secure this power site, and' my hon. friends will remember that that application was backed up by very strong support from the city of Winnipeg, because they were promised a pulp mill there. I did not believe we were in a position at that time to warrant the application for a second pulp mill in the province of Manitoba, and I think later events have proved that my judgment on that occasion was sound. Nor did I think they were entitled to get the water power until such time as we were able to say to them that there was a possibility for development in the pulp and paper industry. They did not get it.
Later on, in 1925, Mr. Bracken became interested in this power site. I am led to believe from what my hon. friend has said, and particularly from what he has said about the Free Press, that someone must have been interested in the Manitoba government securing power rights in Manitoba for operation as a public utility. Mr. Bracken came to me and said that he was desirous of obtaining this power site. I have heard it stated that I had something to do with guiding Mr. Bracken in this matter. I never did. I make that assertion most fully and completely. I said to him, "Mr. Bracken," as I would say to the province of Alberta or to the province

Natural Resources-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
of Saskatchewan, "if you are desirous of having any of these water-powers and developing them as a public utility for the benefit of the people, then your application will be given priority over all comers." That was the assurance Mr. Bracken got from me on behalf of the federal government, and he occupied that position for almost eighteen months or more. But I made this statement. 1 said, "Mr. Bracken, in order to have full development on the Winnipeg river, we are desirous of getting rid of that Pinawa plant and throwing the whole flowage over the Seven Sisters falls, in order that we may have a larger power development than could be obtained by a division of these two interests." That was the only suggestion I made to the Premier of Manitoba. Not only that-and I must thank my hon. friend for reading the resolution passed by the members of the assembly for Manitoba, in which they pointed out that in the event of the province of Manitoba or the city of Winnipeg not requiring this public development, then they had no objection- in other words, no objection to placing the Winnipeg Electric in a position of priority.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That was after parliament or the city should have been consulted.


Charles A. Stewart: I am coming to that; I want to deal with it in sequence. That was the resolution my hon. friend has read, and with which I agree.
The only condition I made was that Mr. Bracken take upon himself the responsibility of seeing whether or not it would be possible to make an arrangement with the Winnipeg Electric for the scrapping of that plant and diverting the whole flowage down the river. I want to make it clear that I did not put any strings on it, and state to Mr. Bracken what would result if he was not able to do that. I said I hoped he would try to do that in the interests of securing more power for Manitoba or the full utilization of the power available. If he had not been able to do that, there would have been no hesitancy on my part in recommending that the license should be issued to him. He went on and made an arrangement with the Winnipeg Electric. He had time to call in men in whom he had confidence, and men in whom I had the utmost confidence-particularly Doctor Hogg of the Ontario Hydro. I have worked with Doctor Hogg on the Niagara, and on other power and scenic developments, and he is a man whose opinion I value very highly. I did not see Doctor
Hogg's report till long afterwards, but in effect Doctor Hogg advised Mr. Bracken, after viewing the whole situation, and having in mind the requirements of the province of Manitoba-the provincial government could not hope to dispose of any power to the city of Winnipeg, because it already had a development. The city had already made application for the Slave Falls, which they are now to develop, in order to supplement the power they already have. I make no defence of Mr. Bracken; I am simply stating the facts. He had no hope of selling power to the city of Winnipeg. His sales would be confiened to the rural parts, and in his arrangement he provided, first, for the scrapping of the Pinawa plant, carrying out what we were desirous of having done; secondly, he was to get for his own service thirty thousand horse-power for a period of thirty years, at a price in the neighbourhood of twelve dollars per horsepower.


Robert Forke: Eleven to thirteen dollars
per horse-power.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but it averages about twelve dollars.
Now, having done that, Premier Bracken notified me that he had made a satisfactory arrangement with the Winnipeg Electric to get the power that he required, and so far as he was concerned he was desirous that I should issue the lease to the Northwestern Power Company-the company that it had been agreed should be created for the purpose of keeping this three hundred thousand horsepower development separate from the Winnipeg Electric undertaking.
May I say I did that in order that I might insert in the lease some rigorous provisions for the protection of the public, and I will deal with this phase later. But he then made this statement:	If you do not
deal with the Winnipeg Electric, it is my desire to be put back in the same position I was before; in other words, that I shall have priority of application for the development of this power site. That was the effect of his letter to me, namely, that he should have the thirty thousand horse-power, the Pinawa plant should be scrapped, that full development should take place on the Seven Sisters, which would mean fifty thousand horse-power more for the people of Manitoba, and that if I should not be willing to issue the lease to the Northwestern Power Company, then of course his agreement went by the board and he desired to be put back in the position he occupied before.
Now, what about public ownership? I had very clear evidence so far as the province
454	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
was concerned from the men who I thought represented Manitoba-the provincial government-that they did not require the power. They had had their chance. I took the precaution to ascertain whether or not the city of Winnipeg was interested. I could not find that it was. The city was interested in securing Slave falls, and stated that for some years it would be developing that power site, and at the moment it was not interested in the development of this power. That is my defence, Mr. Speaker, with respect to what my hon. friends have repeatedly said, that if there was a demand by the public to develop this property they should have their chance. They did have their chance; they refused that chance, and asked me to issue the lease to the power company.
Dealing with what my hon. friend has said as to my not having kept my word with respect to this matter, it is quite true that time and again I consulted the Manitoba members about this very matter. It is quite true that several of them, like the two hon. gentlemen who have spoken and possibly some others who will speak, have never changed their minds on the advantages of public ownership versus private ownership in connection with this matter. It is not true that I did not consult the Manitoba members. My hon. friend said I did not see him. Well, I made an attempt to see him, but he was not in the province, neither was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). With respect to my hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird), I was not able to see him, but on two occasions I did see a goodly number of the other members from Manitoba.
Now then, let me say this. In July, in accordance with the agreement with the Manitoba government, Premier Bracken came to Ottawa. I think he arrived on July 3, because I know on the night of the fourth 1 left for western Canada. I spent the day with Premier Bracken and the members of our government discussing the possibility of the transfer of the natural resources to the province. On that occasion there was a good deal of discussion as to what I might term new demands 'by the provincial authorities. The next day also was spent in discussion.
I was not present. After this discussion an agreement was drawn up which provided, amongst other things, that a commission should be appointed to study the whole question of placing Manitoba on an equality with the other provinces of Canada as from the date of her creation as a province. It was also arranged that pending the report by the commission and the transfer of these resources, they were to be administered in

accordance with the wishes of the provincial government. That happened, I imagine, on July 5. On July 4 I -was not present, but I assume that that was the agreement which was entered into between our government and the government of Manitoba.
That agreement included all of the natural resources. When I visited Manitoba later I interviewed many of the federal members from the province and discussed the matter with them. After considerable discussion it was agreed that so far as the Seven Sisters power site was concerned-for I felt I owed some obligation to the Manitoba members to discuss it with them-if the provincial government were to take the responsibility of advising that this power site should be given to a private company, then the best thing for the government of Canada to do was to hand this development over direct to the Manitoba government. That was done by me after returning to Ottawa in a letter addressed to the premier of the province some time early in September. He replied stating that he could not accept the resources in that manner.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why?


Charles A. Stewart: The reason he gave was that he had no authority to transfer them to anyone else, and it was his desire that they should go to the Northwestern Power Company.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What prevented his having the authority?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot tell my hon. friend why. I am quoting Premier Bracken's exact words, and my hon. friend will find them in the files when they are brought down. Furthermore, he made the statement that it was his desire that this matter should be closed up. I again communicated with as many of the Manitoba members as I could reach, and I found that the opposition, so evident here in some cases, was very largely removed. When I made my statement referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in reply to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett)-my hon. friend has quoted my words exactly; I have them on my desk- the hon. leader of the opposition impressed upon me the desirability in every case where water-powers were concerned of allowing parliament to deal with the question. I told him that that was an innovation. He reminded me that I had suggested it myself, because I was introducing a bill to provide that parliament should control the resources

Natural Resources-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
contained within the national park areas. That is true; I intend some day to bring that bill down when I have completed arrangements for the park boundaries. But my hon. friend will note that not at any time in that discussion did I agree that that provision should apply to the water-powers then in question or to future water-powers. I said I was willing to take the matter under consideration.
I think I have made clear to my hon. friend some things which heretofore were not clear. I did discuss this matter with members from Manitoba, and may I point out that there were a goodly number of Manitoba members who were at all times in favour of this arrangement.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the minister name them?


Charles A. Stewart: No, I do not propose to name them; it is not fair to ask me to do so. My hon. friend knows who they were. It was after consultation with them and not before, as he would have us believe, that all were unanimous about the matter.
With respect to the round robin to which my hon. friend from Nelson (Mr. Bird) has referred, I did not know it was in existence; I never heard of it. I did know of the resolution presented by my hon. friend.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The round robin was presented to the minister in his office.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend presented me with the resolution.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, but the signatures of seventeen members of Manitoba, with the exception of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), were presented to the minister in his office by the members from that province.


Charles A. Stewart: I have a perfect recollection of the other, but not of the round robin. And I am not in the habit of forgetting. At all events, the hon. member is well aware that a number of the members changed their minds very materially. He will remember that there was a considerable discussion in my office on one occasion among one or two of the members with respect to the question, and it became somewhat heated -very much heated in fact.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask the minister a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: What I want to point out is that if there was unanimity on one occasion it has not continued throughout even this session. Now, feeling as I did that as a government, myself being the minister in charge, we had some responsibility to the government of Manitoba, after having agreed with them that we should administer these resources according to their wishes, naturally when the government of Manitoba were insistent I was taking all the precautions I could to protect the public interest. I would do so in any case, and until the time when the lease itself was issued late in September we took these precautions to safeguard the public. The company is not the Winnipeg Electric Company; it is the Northwestern Company, a separate entity altogether from the Winnipeg Electric; and our object was to separate this unit of construction from any other. In any construction of this character we put an engineer in charge. In this case the agreement provides that if the engineer in charge and the company's engineers do not agree with regard to construction costs then the matter shall be referred to the court for decision, and the court's decision fixes the actual price of the work. Let me be clear about that: it does not fix the price of the transmission lines, but of the works, the transmission lines being supervised by the Dominion government's engineer. The price is fixed by that engineer, but if there is a disagreement between the company and him, then the actual price is fixed by reference to the exchequer court. Why did we so provide? We did so in order to avoid just the things that have been pointed out by my hon. friend; We wished to see that undue costs were not entailed in construction, and we also had in view later on putting in the hands of the board of public utilities, or of the minister himself if he so desires, the fixing of rates for the protection of the public. In that event the minister would know exactly what the undertaking would cost.
Moreover, there is provision in the contract that the government of Manitoba may take over the enterprise at the end of thirty years on the same valuation, less depreciation; they may acquire it after the plant has been operated for thirty years. Of course, the lease itself runs fifty years, but if it is taken over at the end of thirty years provision is made for compensation to the company; it is definitely and clearly provided that a certain percentage will.be paid on the unexpired term, but the provincial government may acquire the undertaking as I have stated. In the meantime, every interest of the public is protected in so far as inflation and false returns with respect to costs are concerned.
456	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
That protection is thrown around the construction of this work. And the same precaution is taken not only in this connection but in every other work of this character; with respect to the very work which is going on at the present time in the constituency of the leader of the opposition in West Calgary, the Calgary Power Company are constructing a large power plant and the same procedure is being followed. Provision is made that control of rates may be had by the Minister of the Interior, but preferably by the public utilities board of the province in which the utility is to be operated. That is provided for. Provision is also made for the acquisition of the plant at the end of the thirty year period, at a fixed price; and until the price is fixed no operating license is issued. In this case they are constructing on an interim license, the license to be issued only after we have agreed upon the price.
I do not know of a single provision omitted from this contract which would protect the public interest; if there is any such omission I should be glad to know what it is. I know it is an easy thing to say that there will be inflation and that there is no redress against the rapacity of a private corporation. Let me say however that I have tried to provide against anything of the sort ever since I have had the honour to administer the natural resources under my department; I have endeavoured to guard against that very thing.
I wish once more to make it clear that I gave the province of Manitoba every opportunity to develop the enterprise; I gave the city of Winnipeg that opportunity. And the city of Winnipeg has the Slave falls. I believe we are getting, by the procedure which we are following, the full possible development on the Winnipeg river for the people of Manitoba, and we are safeguarding the public of that province against undue rates. May I add this: Not only did I want to be sure of my position with the Manitoba government, but you will find by reference to the documents that I insisted that there should be no mistake about the matter. The Manitoba government passed an order in council authorizing the issue of the lease to the Manitoba Power Company. This order in council was passed on September 11, 1928, and at the meeting there were present: The Hon. Mr. Bracken; Mr. McLeod; Mr. Prefontaine; Mr. Hoey; Mr. Montgomery.


James Shaver Woodsworth: One of the members of the government present at the meeting has been forced to resign.
[Mr. C. A. Stewart.)


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
dealing with that; I do not know what has happened in Manitoba in that regard. I am simply dealing with the contract itself, and I am pointing out the precautions which I took to ensure that we should have a thorough understanding with the Manitoba government with respect to the question.
I have only a few ruinates left, Mr. Speaker, but I think I have covered at least all the main points in connection with this matter. I have shown that the resolution does not deal with power sites but with all the natural resources, and how impossible it would be to administer the natural resources as outlined in this resolution. I have no quarrel with my hon. friends with respect to their advocacy of public ownership, but I do say that in fairness to the contract itself and in fairness to the development of the Winnipeg river, so far as .the protection of public interest is concerned no such public interest has been neglected. The machinery is all there for the regulations of rates; means are taken to provide for a guarantee that there will be no excessive costs entering construction; machinery is provided for the acquisition of this undertaking by the province, if they wish to do so, at a valuation fixed in the contract itself. Every provision looking to the public interest is embodied in the contract, and that is why I say in my opinion it was a good contract. My hon. friend will not deny that I always said so. I know nothing about what happened in the Manitoba government or what influence may have been brought to bear upon it, but I do know that I have ample evidence that as far as I could ascertain they were advised that this was a good contract, and on that account I advised this government to issue the lease.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman's' time is up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to ask my hon. friend a question. Is there any difference between the .terms of the contract with the Manitoba company and those of contracts with other power companies such as the Calgary Power Company, to which the hon. gentleman has referred?


Charles A. Stewart: Yea, there is difference. It so happens that our regulations were amended before the lease was issued to the Manitoba Power Company. I did try to embody those changes in the lease to the Calgary Power Company, but was unable to do so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved

Natural Resources-Mr. Bennett
by the hon. gentleman whose address we heard, the speech made by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) and the reply of the minister raise a question of some considerable importance. I have not time to-night to do more than direct attention to rather an important phase of it which has been dwelt upon by the minister. I take it that this house is not concerned with whether or not Manitoba made a good bargain; that is a matter for the electors of the province of Manitoba to settle, but to the extent to which this government became a party to a transaction which may merit public condemnation-whether or not it does I am not saying at the moment-is a matter for the consideration of parliament.
It must be borne in mind that the province of Manitoba has been endeavouring to secure its resources for a number of years, and what has a very strange aspect is that on July 3 and 4 last, only a few days after the prorogation of this parliament the Premier ot the province of Manitoba discussed this question with the government of the day, and an announcement was made on July 11, 1928, as follows:
Following a conference held at Ottawa on July 3 and 4, 1928, between representatives of the government of Canada and of the government of Manitoba, the results of which conference have since been approved by the two governments, agreement was reached as to the method and basis of settlement of the question of the administration and control of the natural resources of Manitoba, as follows:-
1.	The province of Manitoba to be placed in a position of equality with the other provinces of confederation with respect to the administration and control of its natural resources, as from its entrance into confederation in 1870.
2.	The government of Canada, with the concurrence of the government of Manitoba, to appoint a commission of three persons to enquire and report as to what financial readjustments should be made to effect this end.
3.	The commission to be empowered to decide what financial or other considerations are relevant to its enquiry.
4.	The findings of the commission to be submitted to the parliament of Canada and to the legislature of Manitoba.
5.	Upon agreement on the financial terms following consideration of the report of the commission, the respective governments to introduce the necessary legislation to give effect to the financial terms as agreed upon, and to effect the transfer to the province of the unalienated natural resources within its boundaries, subject to any trust existing in respect thereof, and without prejudice to any interest other than that of the crown in the same.
6.	Pending this transfer, the policy of the government of Canada in the administration of the natural resources of Manitoba to be in accord with wishes of the government of the province.
It must be remembered that notwithstanding the years during which continuous efforts
were made by the successive governments of Manitoba to conclude their dealings with this Dominion, and the fact that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were not able to conclude their dealings with this government, suddenly on July 11 this announcement was made, that the agreement had been negotiated on July 3 and 4 between the government of Manitoba and the government of Canada. Why was Manitoba thus singled out? Did that fact bear any relation to the fact that during a period of months efforts had been made to alienate a power site, which efforts had failed up to that time because the members of this parliament from the province of Manitoba had filed a protest against action being taken by this government? That is the question we must consider, and it will be borne in mind further that on June 6, less than a month before action was taken to turn over the resources to the province of Manitoba, the minister made a statement in answer to a question put by myself, in which I said:
My submission is that sinice we hold these resources, that is, they are the property of the crown in the right of the Dominion, in trust for the crown in the right of the several provinces, we should not as an executive act or as a pure matter of administration part with so valuable a resource as a power site which is of such inestimable value to the people of the country, without the approval of this parliament. In my judgment that would be a proper release to the minister for any action he might take as trustee for the people affected, and would afford an opportunity to the several legislatures to deal with any matter which concerned them until such time as these resources, notably the power sites, ivere turned over to the crown in the right of the several provinces concerned.
At page 3853 of Hansard for last year the Minister of the Interior, who is the present minister, said:
May I give my hon. friend the assurance now that so far as his request is concerned I have no serious objection to offer except this: Of course I am always made more or less the storm centre for the settlement of these difficulties, particularly in Manitoba, but I have adopted the principle of consulting with the provincial governments about these matters. Possibly I have carried that principle too far, but I am never forgetful of the fact that I must take the responsibility for final disposition. I am going to say very frankly here and now that notwithstanding the fact that at present the government have adopted a line of action with respect to the Seven Sister falls I am not in any particular hurry to come to any decision about that matter, largely because of the fact that the members of this house have expressed very decided opinions about the matter as federal members. I am not very much disturbed by the statement that there must be immediate action; I have investigated the matter pretty well and I think there is plenty of time to give ample consideration to this matter before it is decided. In order to settle the
458	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Bennett
question, and in order to prevent any delay, I do not see any reason why we should not await the action of the city council of Winnipeg and of the provincial government, which must take the responsibility, before a final decision is made here. I think that should satisfy my hon. friend.
II put this to the minister: Why was it that in a few short weeks the matter became so urgent that, in order to keep faith with the language he used in parliament, all the natural resources were turned over to the province of Manitoba? Why was it that Alberta was not so considered, and why was not Saskatchewan dealt with in this way also? Why were not the resources of Alberta turned over under a formal agreement without regard to nicety of terms or details? Why was it that the Premier of Saskatchewan came here the other day in this connection and was unable to make a bargain? With respect to Manitoba the only bargain made was to say that the Dominion would turn over the resources to Manitoba just as though it was one of the older provinces, and would account for them since 1870 when Manitoba was formed. Why could not that be done with respect to Alberta and Saskatchewan?


Charles A. Stewart: May I interrupt my hon. friend? Of course they may have an accounting from the day of their inception, if they desire it; they have been offered that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the hon. minister
must realize that that is only part of it. The point is this: why was it that at that moment it became necessary to do this thing? Why was it when there was no hurry on the sixth day of June, this is undertaken, in order to relieve them of the obligation, on the 4th day of July? This undertaking was solemnly made before the house by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), but the whole resources were turned over and a clause inserted in the agreement by which it was said, "We will now administer them as the government of the province of Manitoba desires." Why was this not done until after parliament rose? It is all right to talk about taking steps for the purpose of safeguarding the public interests of the people of Manitoba, but the people of Manitoba are capable of doing that themselves. The order in council was passed a few days after the resolution of the conference had been handed out to the people of this country on the eleventh day of July, following the conference on the third and fourth of July just before the minister went west. The agitation of the private interests for this site had reached the point where the 
government of Manitoba was prepared to come down here and say, "We will accept the responsibility for administering them," and this government turned them over. Why could they not do the same with respect to the other provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: They were
quite prepared to do the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the other provinces?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Read what is said by
the Premier of Saskatchewan in an interview he gave out the other day.


Charles A. Stewart: I have been trying to tell my hon. friend that long before the province of Alberta made an agreement with us, which failed to pass because they refused to go on with it, they were offered an accounting, and they have always been consulted as to the management of the resources and particularly with respect to waterpower.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
knows that from the very inception of the endeavour of the province of Alberta to negotiate-a resolution was passed at the time both my hon. friend and I were members of the legislature, and Mr. Sifton wrote his letter to Sir Wilfrid Laurier-from that time on the province of Alberta has asked for only one thing, namely, that the resources should be turned over with a willingness to account from the day the Northwest Territories became a part of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right. Wherein is the difference?


Richard Bedford Bennett: One difference is between the 6th day of June, when there was no hurry, and the 4th day of July, when there was great hurry, when the influence of the power company on the government of Manitoba and this government became apparent.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend is making a statement of what he supposes are facts, but he forgets that the conference was arranged for long before the Premier of Manitoba was known to have come down here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So much the worse. Why was there no hurry on June 6 of last year when all the time the minister knew that this conference had been arranged for? '


Charles A. Stewart: My hon-friend is confusing the power site and thp natural resources.

Private Bills


Richard Bedford Bennett: The trouble with this
whole matter throughout Manitoba and throughout Canada is that no one has yet been able to understand why the minister made the statement that was made on the 6th day of June last, as to the position taken by this government, when there was no hurry, and that the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba would be consulted; and then within thirty days after the house rose these resources are all transferred, so far as this government is concerned, by an agreement subject only to the question of accounting. The minister said, "We will administer them as the province of Manitoba want us to," but that is not what we were discussing. That is not -the attitude this parliament took; that is not the attitude the members from Manitoba took when they communicated with this house; that is not what was contained in the round robin presented to the minister, according to the gentleman who presented it. Why this unseemly haste? Why this sudden hurry? Why this sudden scurrying to and fro to settle a question of resources which had been engaging the attention of statesmen in this country for the last thirty years? Why is Manitoba treated one way and Alberta another? That is the question, and it is one to which this country is going to have an answer.


Charles A. Stewart: Does my
hon. .friend want to know why they were treated differently?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
each province is concerned, we are perfectly willing to try to deal with them on the basis on which they will negotiate with us, always having in mind the federal intersts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman say that that was the case from the very day the Liberal party first changed their minds in denying our resources; from the day the minister himself heard his then leader in the legislature of Alberta pass a resolution that we demand our resources; from the day that Mr. Sifton sent his letter to Sir Wilfrid Laurier? Was there ever a time when the province of Alberta has not said, all we want is our resources with an accounting since 1870?


Charles A. Stewart: Not since
1870; since 1905.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The speech by Mr. Haul-tain made in the old Territorial legislature when I was present; the speeches in the legislature of Alberta when Mr. Sifton was the leader, and in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, have all been a demand for one thing, and one thing only: that we should have our resources as they stand with an accounting from the time we became part of Canada up to the date of the accounting being made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And a subsidy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot be taken away from the point; the subsidy had nothing to do with it.	.


Charles A. Stewart: Has my hon. friend the letter written by Mr. Arthur Sifton? It did not make any demand for an accounting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He demanded that compensation should be given for the resources which had been alienated before we became a province.


Charles A. Stewart: If my hon. friend will look up the letter I think he will
change his mind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us not get away from the question. Why the haste? Why the hurry? Do not let us get away for a single moment from the question that is agitating the people.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 26, 1929