1929-03-05

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) presented the third report of the special committee appointed in accordance with the recommendation of the select standing committee on privileges and elections, concurred in by the house on the fifth day of June, 1928, as follows:
Your committee recommends that the quorum of fifteen members thereof be reduced to nine members.

Report of Debates
He said: I beg to move:
That the third report of the special committee appointed in accordance with the recommendation of the select standing committee on privileges and elections, concurred in by the house on June 5, 1928, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister) moved:
That the first report of the select standing committee to supervise the official report of the debates, presented on the 30th day of June, 1924, be referred to the said committee for reconsideration, with the object of making a certain amendment thereto respecting the distribution of Hansard.
He said: I am given to understand that at the present time hon. members of the Senate receive only one copy of Hansard, and that they desire to have three copies. This is to enable the committee to give each senator three copies instead of one.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved the first reading of Bill No. 36 (from the senate) to amend certain provisions to the Criminal Code respecting the possession of weapons.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GEARY:: I have been asked not on
behalf of the senate but by one of the members of the senate to introduce this bill. I did so last year. Last year it passed two readings in the house, passed the committee, and stood on the order paper for third reading. Seeing that the bill reached that stage last year, the members surely knew what they were doing, and I do not think it requires any further explanation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MONTREAL RAILWAY TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
REPOIiT OF MR. FREDERICK PALMER-PRINTING
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways whether it is the intention of the government to print the report of Mr. Palmer which was laid on the table of the house recently, so that it may be distributed and examined.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals)-: I tabled the report the other day and arrangements are now in
hand to have a sufficient number printed for distribution to any who may be interested in the contents.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is a matter of the
utmost importance in the constituency which I represent, and it would be most opportune if the report were printed in both languages with the plans attached.


Mr. DUNNING:: That is the arrangement which is being made. The report will be printed in both languages with the plans attached, but my hon. friend will understand that reproduction of the plans will take a little time. The work is being proceeded with as expeditiously as possible, and I can assure my hon. friend of any reasonable number of copies he may desire.



CANADIAN MINISTER AT WASHINGTON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: May I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a news despatch to the effect that the Canadian minister at Washington was one of the few diplomats who appeared in full regalia at the recent inaugural ceremony? Is it the policy of the government that our diplomatic corps shall be properly garbed in regalia of a distinctive character, and if so, of what character is it likely to be?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I assume that the Canadian minister at Washington appeared in a diplomatic uniform similar to that of the British minister. Wherever we have legations and there are also British legations or embassies there I think it is probable that our ministers will wear uniforms similar to those worn by members of the British diplomatic corps.



IMPORTATION OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: May I be permitted to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) an item in the Border Cities Star, of Saturday, March 2, in which it is stated, under the heading "Ottawa to Protect Growers, Promise" that "action to keep out low-priced United States fruit and vegetables is sure if underselling proved, says Mr. Odette, Liberal M.P. for East Essex." I would ask if it is the intention of the government to introduce a bill this session to protect the fiuit and vegetable growers of western Ontario or of the entire Dominion.

Natural Resources-Mr. Stevens


Mr. SPEAKER:: Notice would be in order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not like to say anything to discount what the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette) may have said, but I would say that the government's intention will be made known in due course.



PEACE RIVER RAILWAY OUTLET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia):: I would ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) if he would lay on the table the report of the Canadian National Railway engineers with regard to surveys made for an outlet from the Peace River district.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways andl Canals): I am not aware just what my hon. friend has in mind, but if there is anything in the way of information which has not been previously tabled, I shall see to it that it is tabled.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, March 4, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. W oodsworth:
That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.
And on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie:
That the motion be amended by striking out the words "natural .resources" where they occur in said motion and by inserting in lieu thereof the words "water-powers".
Hon. H.H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, the motion before the house is a very brief one. I shall read it in order to keep fresh in the minds of hon. members the subject matter of the discussion which has been engaging our attention now for several days:
That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.
To that a very modest amendment has been moved, limiting the words "natural resources" to water-powers. On this motion and amendment there has been very considerable discussion.
I would like at once to remind the house, as many hon. members have done, that this resolution is in very broad general terms. I do not wish, however, to join with some hon. members who have attacked the hon. member
[Mr. Gott 1
for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) who moved the original resolution, and to say that there was any ulterior design in expressing the resolution in such general terms, because I believe that what was in his mind was to introduce a resolution which would be of a character to enable members of this house to declare themselves on the principle which he had in his mind, and I think we should give the hon. member credit for sincerity in so far as that is concerned.
But I do differ with the hon. member, and I have felt myself in some difficulty from the commencement of this debate, in regard to the precise application of this resolution to the administration of the public affairs there referred to by a government, irrespective of what that government might be. I think, when a resolution of this kind is introduced into the house, the general tendency of parliament is to receive it in the spirit in which it is offered, and not to be too critical in the interpretation one puts upon it. Very frequently resolutions of this character are passed by this house, and they are not interpreted as directing the government to give effect to the exact letter of the resolution, but rather, the resolution serves as a general guide for the government. But in this case, the government, represented by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), whose department was particularly affected, has attacked the resolution rather vigorously; in fact, I think we had four or five ministers yesterday expressing their views on the resolution.
There is enunciated in the resolution a principle which I think meets with fairly general support, and that is that within reason the public should keep control of these natural resources, such as water powers. Where we differ is as to the exact method of control. Some hon. members would have the water powers of Canada entirely under government direction and administration. Others are prepared to keep control of them in a measure, but to allow certain latitude to private enterprise. However, there has been a marked difference of opinion. A little later on, I desire to offer to the house an amendment which I hope will meet with general approval, and will in a sense break the deadlock which we have witnessed in the discussion so far, an amendment which I think will bring even my hon. friends on the government benches to its support.
But let me first bring to the attention of the government, and more particularly of my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, just what precipitated this discussion, just what was behind the introduction of this resolution. I do not wish to be discourteous to the minister. It is customary, when you are going to

Natural Resources-Mr. Stevens
offer some criticism of a minister's action, to tell him first that you think very highly of him. I shall not do that other than by this implication. He understands me, I think, sufficiently to make it unnecessary for me to indulge in those courtesies, but I do wish to say to him this: Last year on the 6th day of June, the Minister of the Interior, speaking from his seat in the house, and representing the government, gave certain assurances to parliament in reply to a rather pointed request made by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). I wish to read briefly some extracts from what the minister said on that occasion, and then I want to say to him that in the light of those statements which he made, he surely must realize that parliament is justified in criticizing him for-what shall I say?-at least not carrying out the spirit of his observations of last year; I think I can put it in that way. The minister said on that occasion, and this was in reference to a request I had made of him a couple of years ago regarding Spray lakes, that such resources " should not be alienated but be put under the control of parliament." He was referring there to the resources in the national parks. I want to bring this to the attention of the minister and of parliament right at this point. Yesterday the minister told us that the government had under way at the present time a process, by legislation or by regulation, of taking Spray lakes outside of the boundaries of the parks, and then they would be able to deal with them. I would suggest to the minister that that is scarcely keeping faith with his promise to parliament that these resources should not be alienated without consulting parliament.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Parliament
will be consulted because the bill to eliminate Spray lakes will have to be presented to parliament.


Mr. STEVENS:: That will meet that objection, and I am glad that the minister has given us that assurance. Then, replying to the hon. leader of the opposition, the minister proceeds:
Now I understand my hon. friend to say that if I give a pro-mise that no disposition of any water-power will be made until it is placed under the control of

Mr. Bennett interrupted and said, No. The discussion continued:
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) : What did my hon.
friend say?
Mr. Bennett: I said we should not part with any water-powers without the approval of this parliament.
Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) : That would mean that a private bill would be introduced?
Mr. Bennett: Or approval of a contract given by resolution.
Then Mr. Stewart goes on:
-and now a very grave difference of opinion exists with respect to the disposition of the Seven Sisters falls. I may assure my hon. friend that until that difference of opinion is settled I am not going to issue any license for that water-power. I think I may assure my hon. friend of that.
In regard to the license given for that water-power or to the action of the Manitoba government in granting whatever licenses it had power to grant, I have no criticism to offer because I am not in a position to say whether it was a provident contract or not. That is a question for the people of Manitoba to determine; I am not going to discuss it. But I say to the minister, whether his promise was in regard to the Seven Sisters falls or the Spray lakes or anything else, a promise given by a minister of the crown from his seat in this house should not only be observed in its general terms, it should be observed to the very letter. In other words, a ministerial promise ought to go even further than what might be squeezed out of the interpretation of its words. And it is because certain members of parliament, in fact a substantial number, feel that parliament has not been treated quite fairly and courteously in this regard that this debate has been precipitated. I suggest that a salutary lesson has been read not only to the present government but to future governments that it is not wise-shall I say?-to play with parliament in matters of this kind.
Now, as this debate has proceeded some difficulties have been disclosed. The Minister of the Interior tells parliament this year, as he did last year, that he has been the storm centre for some years in regard to dealing with the natural resources, particularly I think, those of Manitoba.


Charles A. Stewart: Only Manitoba.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Only Manitoba. He described to us in rather pathetic language the efforts that he has made to please the people of Manitoba and at the same time to discharge his responsibility as a minister of the crown in the federal arena. According to the method adopted-which, he says, perhaps he has carried too far-he has had to refer all applications respecting water-powers to the governments of the three prairie provinces for their review, approval and sanction. Then he added: he was forced, however, to take full responsibility. Yesterday he told us that he does take responsibility, evidently feeling that this responsibility had been unfairly imposed upon him in the light of the difficulties that have since arisen.
66S

Natural Resources-Mr. Stevens
The minister described at great length, and other members have read into the record the letters, telegrams and documents of one kind and another which have passed between himself and the government of Manitoba in working out the granting of this license showing-


Charles A. Stewart: I desire to
interrupt my hon. friend as little as possible, but I do not want to let his statement go unchallenged, that I was ever pathetic in my defence or that I resented having to deal with the provincial governments.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let me tell my hon. friend this. Yesterday one of his colleagues passed this comment, and the house will have to pardon me if I use the first name of the minister; his colleague said: Well, I think a little opposition spurs Charlie up, and I thought he did better to-day than he did the other day. So my hon. friend can thank us for spurring' him up a little. To me the terms in which he defended himself were really pathetic and I felt sorry for him.


Charles A. Stewart: May I
assure my hon. friend that I do not desire it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But I am going to give it to him freely; I want him to know how friendly disposed I am towards him. The minister described time and again the difficulties with which he was confronted trying to compose the differences between himself, his department, the Manitoba government, the Manitoba federal members, the city of Winnipeg and the members of the local legislature, all of these being factors in the matter. All I am trying to do is to impress this on the house and to help the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I mean it; and in a few
moments I am going to help the thin red line from Manitoba. What I am trying to point out is that the minister finds, and he has endeavoured to show parliament, that the present method of administering the 'water-powers and indeed the other natural resources of the three prairie provinces is an impracticable and cumbersome method. That is the whole burden of his speech. If his speech did not mean that, it meant very little else. Why, we had the record of letters and telegrams passing backwards and forwards, we had red robins, partly repudiated and partly supported-


An hon. MEMBER:: Round robins.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, round robins. I was looking at a red tie when I said red robins. We bad round robins, we had resolutions and orders in council, and the minister went so far as to say that he was so involved in the mass of correspondence that he would not even take a letter from Mr. Bracken. He insisted on an order in council signed by all the members of the Manitoba government present at the council before he would be satisfied to act in regard to the matter. I do not blame him. The correspondence discloses the great differences of opinion between the various interests affected.
Well, such was the dilemma of the Minister of the Interior. Then we find the members from Manitoba sharply divided on this matter. Some of the hon. gentlemen sitting over to the southeastward of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown)-under his patronage, as it were-are sharply divided in this house, and there is a distinct cleavage between hon. members on that side from Manitoba and hon. members from the province sitting on this side. Some are taking the position that the whole question of the granting of licenses for water-powers should be left to the Manitoba legislature; others take the position that if the government of Manitoba by order in council expressed its approval they are satisfied that the minister should grant the license. As I say, there is a very sharp division of opinion between the Manitoba members. This is apparent from the speeches delivered. I am looking for the moment at the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen), who, in a very eloquent speech the other night laboured hard to jusbify the position he is now taking. His conscience is worrying him; anybody can see it. The hon. member is lobking for some way to escape from the dilemma in which he finds himself. I shall offer it to him in a few moments.


Mr. GLEN:: Thank you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now, the hon. members
from Manitoba signed a round robin last year, a petition, to the minister, in which they asked him not to take any action in this matter until their differences were composed and until the various elements that had a right to express their views had been brought into harmony. They were divided at that time; I point out to the minister that they are still divided.
Now I come to my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). He is not in his seat. He told us yesterday that the whole proposal to divide water-powers from the other natural resources, as suggested

Natural Resources-Mr. Stevens
by the amendment now before the house, is utterly ridiculous. The Minister of Agriculture, with his usual faculty for burlesquing something in opposition to which he cannot present sound reasons, made fun and sport of the whole business-in marked contrast to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), who, with his customary vigour, argued along another line. The Minister of Agriculture asks, whoever beard of a government doing such a thing as is proposed? Whoever heard, he wants to know, of a government separating one resource from another in administration. Let me read exactly what he said:
How can. we justify segregating water-powers and deciding that they shall be dealt with in the particular manner .provided by the amendment to the resolution, leaving all other resources to be administered as they have been for the last half century or more?
He goes on-and I would direct the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to this:
No government could justify making that distinction and legislating thereon.
I will show in a moment that this government has for ten years administered affairs just in that way; I will prove that conclusively. So that the Minister of Agriculture added nothing to the debate by ridiculing what his government is already doing.
The Minister of Railways was very much alarmed because, as he said, if this resolution were carried in its original form a prospector might be operating on the boundary line between Alberta and British Columbia, and not knowing precisely where on that mountainside the boundary line came he might find himself compelled to come to parliament if he happened to be on one side, or to go to Victoria if he happened to be on the other side.


Charles Avery Dunning: No, to the mining recorder's office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, in case he happened to be on the other side. And in view of that contingency the Minister of Railways, with the usual vigour which characterizes all his addresses in debate, tried to show to the house that this was a hopeless and impossible proposition. Of course, he knew perfectly well that the spirit of the resolution did not contemplate the consideration in such a way of such details. But I will offer to the Minister of Railways a means of escape from the dilemma in which he finds himself.
I have just run over this matter hastily for the purpose of bringing to the attention of the house the cleavages of opinion in the house with respect to the question, and to
suggest that we might frame some amendment that would meet the wishes of all. Before doing so, however, I should like to deal with another matter which I should have discussed at the outset. While I consider it to be more or less of secondary importance in this particular debate, at the same time it is in itself of major importance. I refer to the Beauharnois matter. I would not introduce chat question had the Prime Minister not gone to such an elaborate extent in dealing with the natural resources question, and had he not so emphasized the rights of the provinces, not only in this matter but in others as well. He deemed it his duty to uphold the great doctrine of provincial rights. Now here we have before the government-not, I would remind him, before parliament-what is perhaps one of the largest questions with which this country has been faced in many years, namely, the granting of approval to the Beauharnois power scheme. But the Beauharnois power scheme is not the sole question; the question is: Does the Beauharnois power scheme dovetail into an economic and scientific development of the whole St. Lawrence great waterways problem? That is the first question. We do not know; parliament is not taken into the government's confidence in this matter. The government has intimated-at least through the press

that a statement will be made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is not responsible for the press.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Well, I will say this to
the Prime Minister:	He frequently answers
such a statement as I am making by saying that the government is not responsible for the press. I know that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to make that clear. There 'has been a great deal in the press, and the government is not responsible for any of it. Any statement the government has to make will be made to parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This country, not only the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario, but the Dominion of Canada is vitally interested in this great proposed scheme of development on the St. Lawrence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government is fully aware of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is the biggest thing this country has ever, not undertaken, but discussed or considered in the way of natural development; and I say to the Prime Minister that there has been so much discussion of this question, officially, semi-offiicially and un-

Natural Resources-Mr. Stevens
officially, that the public is entitled to know where the government stands. The Prime Minister would probably answer-if he is not doing so in his own mind now-by observing, "In good time the government will reply, ' giving its views". But, I say, this thing is going on from day to day, progressing from one step to another, while parliament has no opportunity of considering whether or not the scheme is a sound one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does my hon. friend appreciate what the government's obligation in the matter is? It is to approve certain plans or not to approve them. If the government, after taking all considerations into account, approves those plans, that approval will be announced. But no approval will be given unless the government is satisfied that all public interests will be conserved.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But I submit that it will not satisfy parliament, it will not satisfy the country at large, if the government oome to parliament and say, with the whip over their own members, "This is what we have approved and we stand or fall by it". That is not sufficient in a matter of this kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend knows that the way in which the government gives its approval is the course that has been followed for years, and the government does not intend to vary -from that course at this time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And what is that course ? Under the Navigable Waters Protection Act the governor in council will or will not give approval of the scheme. That is the way it will be done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
only authority it has.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Ah! But I am trying to impress upon the Prime Minister now that this proposition is of such supreme importance to the country as a whole that parliament is entitled to know just where the government stands in the matter; parliament is entitled to know that before the government comes to a decision. It is not sufficient for the government to say, "The machinery at our disposal provides that it shall be done by order in council", and then come to parliament, look us in the eye, and say. "We have a majority of twenty and will put this through". Let me put this to the Prime Minister. In regard to the ordinary business of the department, minor questions which are not of great importance, that may be all right. But this question is of supreme importance co 
the country. I am not prepared at this time to say a word regarding the soundness or otherwise of the Beauharnois scheme, I am inclined to think it would be a sound way to proceed provided it dovetailed, from an engineering standpoint, into the development of the whole St. Lawrence great waterways proposal. I think I speak on behalf of those with me on this side, and on behalf of the vast majority of the people of Canada, who are anxiously looking for some pronouncement, when I put this question to the government: What is the government's position in relation to the Beauharnois scheme? Where do they stand? Does it conflict with the St. Lawrence great waterways scheme as portrayed by the engineers of the government? And what is the government going to do if it does so conflict?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will not
grant approval.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Now I wish to offer to
the house an amendment, which I think will meet the views of all hon. gentlemen.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Prime Minister and
his chief whip have evidently a little joke or their side; the Prime Minister has been telling the chief whip to line up the crowd. That is all I can make out of their joke. Now, the Minister of Agriculture pointed out, with some degree of ridicule, that under this proposal the government would administer the waterways under one system and lands under another. Well, they have been doing so for sixteen years, under an act of this parliament passed in 1912, amended in 1913 and 1919, and now a part of the revised statutes of Canada, chapter 211.
In British Columbia there is a strip of land known as the railway belt, owned and administered by this government. In 1912 this parliament turned over to the province of British Columbia complete control of the water-powers in the railway belt so far as administration is concerned. I have the act under mj' hand; it is chapter 211 of the revised statutes, known as the Railway Belt Water Act. I wish to read one or two sections briefly, after which I intend to offer an amendment to the amendment :
(a) All water without distinction within the railway belt shall, during the pleasure of the governor in council, for the purposes of administration be under the control of the authorities of the province of British Columbia and be administered under and in accordance with the water acts, as if the said acts were enacted by the parliament of Canada...

Natural Resources-Mr. Stevens
Then the water acts are defined as being the water acts of British Columbia.


Mr. CANNON:: What section is my hon.
friend reading?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am reading paragraph
(a) of subsection 2 of section 5. I proceed:
The governor in council may direct that any act, or portion thereof, passed by the legislature of the province of British Columbia after the third day of March, 1913, relating to water in the province not within the railway belt shall apply to the water in the railway belt...
In other words, that makes the water acts of British Columbia applicable to the waters of the railway belt. Then, if the Minister of Agriculture were in his seat I would like to direct his attention to the following section :
Nothing in this act shall be construed as conferring any interest in or authority or control over any lands belonging to the crown in the right of Canada.
I think that effectively disposes of the opposition raised by the Minister of Agriculture. I have read these sections, into the details of which I cannot go since my time is rapidly passing, for the purpose of demonstrating to the house that the administration of the water-powers in a province may be delegated to that province by this parliament; that it has been done; that a government of Canada has been carrying on under that principle for sixteen years in regard to the railway belt, and the same principle can be applied to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta,
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I desire to offer an amendment to the amendment. This is done, of course, pending the transfer of the natural resources in their entirety, and in this amendment I do not offer the details of legislation but simply cite the act and offer my suggestion to the house for its approval, after which the necessary legislation can be considered in detail. The following is the amendment to the amendment, moved by myself and seconded by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion):
That the said motion, as amended, be further amended by adding the word "further" after the word "no" in the first line thereof, and by striking out all the words after the word "government" in the second last line thereof, and by substituting the following words:
"In the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, shall be made under the Dominion Water Powers Act, but the said water^powers shall be administered by the respective provinces. under powers to be granted by this parliament similar to the powers granted to the province of British Columbia to administer the water-powers in the railway belt as set forth
in the Railway Belt Water Act of 1912, and being chapter 211 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927'!.
Now I will read the amended motion as it will appear with my amendment, in order to make it clear to those who have not the motion before them:
That, in the opinion of this house, no further disposition of the water-powers under the control of the federal government in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, shall be made under the Dominion Water Powers Act. but the said water-powers shall be administered by the respective provinces, under powers to be granted by this parliament similar to the powers granted to the province of British Columbia to administer the water-powers in the railway belt as set forth in the Railway Belt Water Act of 1912, and being chapter 211 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1927.


Edward Joseph Garland: In what wa>
will this sub-amendment help the hon. member out of his difficulty with regard to the disposal of the Beauharnois development on the St. Lawrence?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will admit frankly that it does not affect that matter.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not see the reason for this rather vacant laugh. This does not affect that question; it was not drafted to affect it, because practically all the discussion during this debate has centred around the natural resources of the west. With regard [DOT] to the Beauharnois situation it is clear from the decision of the supreme court, so far as that decision has gone and from the reasonings contained therein, that the power rights rest with the provinces and that the right of the Dominion government is in regard to navigable waters. So the decision in regard to the Beauharnois scheme will be made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and will not affect or alter' the situation with which we are dealing here.


Charles A. Stewart: Just to clear up the matter I would like to ask a question Is this amendment exactly in accord with the statute turning over to the government of British Columbia for administrative purposes the waters in the railway belt?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Of course the minister will apreeiate what I said a moment ago, that in this resolution I have not attempted to define the necessary legislation.


Charles A. Stewart: I just want to get at what is in the mind of my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I suggest that legislation of the character of the Railway Belt Water

Natural Resources-Mr. Stevens
Act, if applied to the water-powers of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta would convey to those provinces the administrative control of the water within their boundaries.


Charles Avery Dunning: Only so long as the governor in council saw fit.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, very good.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what the law say3.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not suggesting that this is a final transfer of resources, but I do suggest that it should be done pending a settlement of the transfer of the resources to the provinces.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is practically what we are doing now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, that is exactly where the minister is wrong, if he will pardon my saying so. I do not want this to be taken as mere gush, so to speak, but I sympathize with the minister in the position in which he finds himself. Before he can deal with a water-power he must consult with the government of one of these three provinces. It is obvious to anyone that no minister here in Ottawa can properly administer the water-powers as these three different governments may desire, separated from them as he is by time and distance. He must carry on all negotiations by letters and telegrams, by influences here and influences there. The procedure is impracticable; it is not parlia- , mentary; it is not in accordance with the principles of good government, and I say to the Prime Minister and his colleagues that his Minister of the Interior cannot continue the administration of these valuable water-powere under these circumstances. Consider what the Minister of Railways said last night with regard to the northern part of Saskatchewan, which is on the eve of- a tremendous mineral development and where there are great water-powers to be developed. The province of Saskatchewan desires to obtain control over these resources, knowing or expecting that their resources are to be returned to them, yet they must communicate every detail of their desires and expectations to the Minister of the Interior at Ottawa and trust that he will place the proper interpretation upon their wishes. It is not fair to him and it is not fair to them.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is quite right.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say to this house that, pending the settlement of this great question of the transfer of their natural resources to these prairie provinces, we might well adopt this resolution and thus find a way of escape

from the dilemma in which we find ourselves, with many agreeing on different phases of the question yet disagreeing on other points. I ask the government to adopt this proposal and thus give to the prairie provinces control of their resources at least so far as the administration of water-powers is concerned, and then carry on for the next six months or a year negotiations looking to the settlement of the great problem of the transfer of all the resources.


Edward Joseph Garland: How would this affect the situation we have in Alberta at present, where a great power development which is under consideration is contained within a park area?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of the
Interior has stated that he is going to revise the boundaries of the park, which would place these lakes under the control of the Alberta legislature. My point is this: The people in the prairie provinces-I contended for this principle for the railway belt in British Columbia when I was first in parliament- have a right to determine how these things shall be administered and what general policy shall direct. Manitoba might adopt a policy of public ownership; Alberta might adopt a policy of private exploitation.


Edward Joseph Garland: Not a
chance.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am just citing that for
the sake of argument. British Columbia has adopted that policy, and I want to say to the Minister of the Interior that the Water Powers Act of British Columbia is looked upon as the finest piece of legislation regarding the administration of water-powers that there is perhaps on this continent; certainly it is the finest in Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: I never
attempted to interfere with it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not suggesting that. I offer the suggestion that the other provinces of Canada might very well study that act as a basis for the legislation it would be necessary for them to introduce should this resolution be adopted.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Since this resolution has been presented I have not had time to look up the Railway Belt Water Act of 1912, and I would like to know if it would be necessary, should this resolution be adopted, for the provincial legislature to take action before they would be able to administer their own water-powers.

Natural Resources-Mr. Cahan


Henry Herbert Stevens: The parliament of Canada would intimate to the legislatures of these various provinces that they proposed passing such legislation; then an act, similar to the Railway Belt Water Act, would be introduced here by which the water-powers would be transferred to the administration of the provinces. Undoubtedly, it would be necessary for the legislatures of the provinces to pass the necessary legislation to carry on the administration within their own boundaries.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It would not be
done by order in council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should not think so,
although I am not sufficiently qualified as a constitutional lawyer to give that ruling dogmatically.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I listened to the debate yesterday, and I have had the privilege of reading the debates of the previous days. I believe in the principle of ministerial responsibility to parliament; the principle of legislative responsibility on the part of parliament and of ministerial responsibility in administration in order to give efficient and practical application to such legislation as parliament may enact; and in the further principle that in so far as powers are vested in the governor in council to be exercised in their sole discretion, they have the right to exercise that discretion subject to their being amenable to parliament. If I were called upon to decide as to whether the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) had exercised a proper discretion in granting the license for the Seven Sisters falls power site, I would be unable to do so because I am not in possession of sufficient information. If the issue is that of a condemnation of the Minister of the Interior, in justice to him and in justice to parliament it should be brought forward by a substantive original motion, or by proposing an amendment when we are on the motion to go into committee of supply or committe of ways and means. In that manner all the facts relevant and pertinent to the exercise of that discretion by the minister could be discussed by parliament upon the amendment then before the house, and we would be in position to deal with the issue on its merits.
I was somewhat embarrassed by the nature of the original resolution, and to a lesser extent by the amendment. I would have voted for the amendment as it stood, but would have done so simply as an expression of opinion on the part of the house, to the effect that, even although it may be within the jurisdiction of the governor in council to deal with certain matters by order in council, there are 78594-43
times when such matters are of such supreme importance to the whole country that parliament should be taken into the confidence of the government before a final disposition is made of the matter.
I had some personal experience with regard to the administration of the act of 1912, which vested in the province of British Columbia the administration of water-powers. When that act was first passed by this house it was provided that orders in council passed by the legislature of British Columbia in reference to the carrying out of the act should retain validity and force only until the close of the next succeeding session of the parliament of Canada, when, if they were not approved by the parliament of Canada, they became invalid and of no force or effect. The wide scope of that amendment brought before the parliament of Canada not only the granting of the original license or permit, but all such minor modificartdons or amendments as were necessary for the carrying out of the original undertaking. However, it was found that the administration of the Water Powers Act of British Columbia was made impossible when every minor matter connected therewith could only become permanently effective on receiving the approval of the parliament of Canada. I brought that to the attention of the government of the day, and the clause providing that every order in council should be brought before parliament for its approval was repealed, because it was found impossible to administer the affairs of the country under such a provision.
The debate has disclosed that the Minister of the Interior, in the exercise of his discretion in reporting to the governor in council and the governor in council in granting the permit or license for the development of water-power at the Seven Sisters falls, if that is the name, acted clearly within the well-defined limits of the powers vested in the minister and the governor in council by the act which has been under discussion, chapter 210 of the revised statutes, an act respecting Dominion water-powers. But we find that the minister, in carrying out the duties imposed upon him, not only consulted with his colleagues in the government but found it necessary, in view of the importance of that undertaking, to consult with certain members of the house, some fourteen in all, if that is the number. My contention is that if the minister in the exercise of his discretion finds it necessary, on a matter of the disposal of natural resources, the water-powers of the country, to consult ten or fourteen members, it is a matter of such importance that he should frankly come to the whole house, be-



Natural Resources-Mr. Cahan
cause each one of us as an individual member has exactly the same responsibilities as the members from Manitoba with whom he did consult.
Therefore, there are, as the circumstances have disclosed, exceptional cases when the house should be consulted with respect thereto. If I had voted for the original amendment, as I intended to do, I should have voted for it with the explanation that I think it is too broad in its terms and as merely indicating that there are circumstances which are peculiar, conditions which are special, which at certain times render it advisable that the government, before vesting these water-powers in companies or in private individuals, should consult the house with regard to their prospective action, so that there may be a clear discussion, a clear vision in the minds of the members as to what is involved, and so that the practical approval of the house may be obtained before such concessions are made. Had I voted for the amendment, I would not have voted as condemning the Minister of the Interior. He acted within the clearly defined jurisdiction vested in him by the act to which I have referred and that act, chapter 210 of the revised statutes, dealing with water-powers, was an act introduced into this parliament by the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen as a government measure when he was Minister of the Interior and was, after certain amendments, supported unanimously by the house. Therefore if it were shown that the Minister of the Interior had acted honestly, with no wrongful intent or corrupt motive, I would not be prepared to condemn him for exercising the power vested in him by an act of parliament which received the unanimous approval at least of this bouse.
But we have by a resolution which we passed the other day unanimously agreed that the natural resources of the three provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta should be vested in those provinces respectively, that is, vested in the crown as representing the three provinces respectively. Until that is carried out there must be a certain provisional period, and some temporary arrangements must be made, because it is essential to the administration of public affairs in this country that under our institutions ministerial responsibility should be maintained. Therefore I am not personally in favour of continuing a condition of affairs in which the Minister of the Interior, in exercising his duties as vested in him by an act of parliament, shall be in a position to come before the house and justify his action

by reason of the fact that he has secured the prior consent of the government of a province. The government of the Dominion must be responsible to parliament; the government of Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta must be responsible to the appropriate legislature. Therefore I think, as a provisional measure, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) should receive the unanimous support of the house, because until the transfer of the natural resources is made to these provinces respectively, it provisionally places the administration of the water-powers of Manitoba under the control of the legislature and government of that province, and the same in respect of the water-powers of Saskatchewan and Alberta. That is a temporary solution of the difficulties with which we are confronted.
I have had some practical experience over a period of years dealing with the development of water-powers. I was the executive head for seven years of the development in another country of one of the largest and most magnificent water-powers ever known. My experience is that in dealing with the development of water-powers it is impossible that every petty change in plans or specifications, or even a change of site or a change in the conditions under which the operations take place, should always, necessarily, receive the ratification of the legislative assembly or the parliament which is in legislative control. I could give a dozen such experiences showing the impossibility of bringing these matters up for legislative ratification. They must be left as matters of administration, and the government must remain responsible to parliament for their administration, the proficiency, the honesty of it. Therefore I suggest that this is a fair solution, because I firmly believe the development of water-powers should be left to the legislature and government of the province in which those water-powers exist.
If I might be permitted to refer to Beau-harnois, I think the rights of the province of Quebec are clear with respect to the development of the so-called Beauharnois power on the St. Lawrence river. I have read in the press the questions and the answers given thereto by the supreme court on a recent reference, but I have not yet seen published in the press a full statement of the reasons embodied in the opinion of the court. I have heard it said inside and outside of parliament that it seemed to convey no clear idea as to the respective powers of Ontario and Quebec on the one hand, and the Dominion on the other. But after having read that
MARCH 5, 1929	67o
Natural Resources-Mr. Cahan
opinion some six or seven times, I think we find in the opinion itself as clear and direct and even subtle an expression of the views of the supreme court as it was possible for very intelligent men to give under the circumstances.
May I suggest that the inference which I took from the announcement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the other day was that to a certain extent, in his own mind, the methods by which the St. Lawrence river might be developed for navigation, on the one hand, and for power, on the other, had somewhat changed to conform with the spirit of that opinion. In the Beauharnois matter I am clearly of the opinion that the power rights are vested in the province, and that the control of navigation is vested in the federal government of Canada, and I say it would be not only unconstitutional, it would be dishonest if the government of Canada, while pretending to exercise rights with regard to navigation, should use those rights indirectly for the purpose of destroying a power proposition which has received the support of the legislature and of the government of that province.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is what the court
says.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Therefore, while certain
gentlemen on this side or on that side may feel that they would like to see all power projects carried on by governments of provinces or by municipal governments as publicly-owned undertakings, I am thankful that the opinion of the supreme court, as I read it, renders it impossible for this parliament to impose upon Quebec such an institution as you have adopted in the province of Ontario in the Hydro-Electric Commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am serious. I have not
one word to say against the Hydro-Electric Commission. The legislators of Ontario may adopt that or any other form of internal development which they think fit, but in dealing with local works of that kind, they have no right to impose their views upon the sister province, which is at perfect liberty to adopt such means and methods as they may deem it expedient to adopt. I am prepared at any time to enter upon a discussion of the relative merits of the two economic systems which prevail in these two provinces. I have studied the facts so far as I can. Probably the question could not ultimately be determined except by an examination of the books and of the officials of the private companies in the province of Quebec and of the Hydro-78594-43 J
Electric Commission of Ontario, but as nearly as I can ascertain, in the province of Quebec those using industrial power obtain it at slightly lower rates than in the province of Ontario.


Mr. EULER:: Not at all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And those using light obtain it at slightly lower rates in the province of Ontario than in Quebec. If the legislature of the province of Quebec-I differ from it in many of its legislative methods and acts -but if that legislature, which is supreme within its own domain, just as the parliament of Canada is supreme within its own domain, decides that the better industrial development, or the industrial life of that province is conserved by granting licenses or permits to private companies, then leave it to the private companies to carry on their undertakings in conformity with provincial laws.
Furthermore, I think the opinion of the supreme court gives to those of us who are anxious to see a reasonable and equitable settlement of the question of the development of power on the St. Lawrence river a basis of compromise that will be acceptable to the whole country. When this project was first discussed, it was proposed that the power development and the navigation development should be made by the government of Canada under the terms of a treaty to be negotiated with the United States. I believe that if the government had undertaken to carry out that policy, they would have met with great disfavour in all the provinces except Ontario and Quebec, because I have been from almost one end of the country to the other since that suggestion was made, and if I am able to gauge public opinion, public opinion in the maritime provinces and public opinion in the west is against this government undertaking a national liability of $300,000,000 or more for the purpose of developing cheap power for Ontario and cheap power for Quebec at the expense of all the rest of the country. But as it is clear from the opinion given by the supreme court that the province of Ontario, owning the bed of the river St. Lawrence to the boundary line, and being invested with the power rights and privileges, except those which pertain to the riparian owners, has under its legislative jurisdiction the development of power from the Canadian shore of that waterway, I think it is far better that that province should be left to carry on that development by such public-ownership methods or system as it desires to adopt.
Further, I entirely approve of the suggestion made by the Prime Minister the other

Natural Resources-Mr. Cahan
day, if I understood him right., that he had decided, I presume in view of this opinion, to take the governments of Ontario and Quebec into consultation in order that together they might come to a unanimous agreement with regard to the exercise of their respective rights in the St. Lawrence river, whether as to the international section or the Quebec section. That removes one of the most aggravating causes of irritation and discord that would otherwise exist throughout the length and breadth of this land.
If I am not going beyond the question, I would like to make this suggestion to the Prime Minister. I have been accustomed ro read engineers' reports. I have lived ten or twelve years of my life in daily consultation with some of the best hydro-electric engineers that could be procured either on the continent of Europe or in this country, and I have read each one of the reports that have been made on the development of the St. Lawrence river from earliest times down to the present. I would suggest to the right hon. gentleman that there is a method whereby we could preserve for all time, on the Canadian side of the river, a thoroughfare for navigation that would not be dependent in any respect on the legislative jurisdiction of the state of New York or of the congress of the United States, or be dependent on administration by the government of the state of New York or by congress itself.
I reject at once, in such opinion as I have, the idea of developing the international section of the river by one great dam south of Barnhart island. No volume of water such as that was ever contained by one dam, and there is no reason why we should enter upon the experiment. But if you make a dam at the foot either of Crysler island or near Ogden island across the river, which could only be done by agreement between the two countries, you bank up the water and form what is practically a great lake above the dam which will be of a depth suited for navigation. If you build another dam at the foot of Barnhart island you back up the water to such a depth that you have practically a new lake running away back for several miles. The plans which have been so far suggested provide for locks on the American side to drop down at Ogden island and looks, also on the American side, to drop down at Barnhart island. The plans provide further for a weir on the American side which will control the flow of the river, so necessary to maintain the proper levels at the city of Montreal, in which I am particularly interested. But what is worse, those plans provide for one powerhouse, one-

half of which will be used by the American government or its licensees to develop its one-half of the 2,200,000 horse-power available, and the other half of the powerhouse will be used for the development of the power which appertains to Canada or, as I think, to the province of Ontario.
Now, I tell the Prime Minister, this country will never agree to have those locks and those weirs and that powerhouse entirely upon American soil. I believe that is the almost unanimous opinion of the public, as I come in contact with it. But it is easy to overcome that difficulty, and if this matter is to be further investigated I think the board's engineers should ascertain, as it is possible to put locks on the American side to enable the ascent from one level to the other, whether it is not also quite feasible and practicable to put locks on the Canadian side to fulfil the same functions at a not very extreme cost; and weirs should be placed on the Canadian side to control the flow of the river, so that for all time to come, while we accept the treaty pledges of the United States with the utmost confidence, we will alleviate all anxiety on the part of Canadian shipping that they may be compelled at certain times of stress to pass through American locks in order to proceed from the St. Lawrence up into the Great lakes. As a provision against that possibility the extra expense is entitled to very favourable consideration.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I do not want
to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I think he is far afield. The house is discussing a question affecting the natural resources of the country, and the amendment to the amendment concerns the administration of those resources. I am bound to say that many hon. members in the course of the discussion have gone beyond the Seven Sisters, which were not even mentioned in the original motion. May I hope that the hon. gentleman will link up his argument with the main question before the house.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, I
got into one phase of the subject because I am intensely interested in the St. Lawrence scheme, and there has been no opportunity for discussing it, although it has been referred to incidentally in various ways. But to come back to the issue. We are confronted with the question of provincial rights. Only in exceptional circumstances do I favour the Dominion government undertaking the development of hydro-electric power and its transmission and sale. I think it is wise that that should be left to the dif-

Natural Resources-Mr. Gershaw
ferent provinces, because those provinces have adopted different economic systems, and all the arguments in the world would not induce one province to accept the economic system which prevails in the other. Therefore in regard to the development in the west of the Seven Sisters power site and other water-powers which have been mentioned, I think it is wise that this provisional measure should be adopted, and so place the administration of those water-powers under the several provincial governments, subject to such laws and legislative enactments as the local legislatures may adopt. If they decide that the development must be undertaken by the province, by a municipality, or by some other public authority, the decision is entirely within their own discretion. If they decide, as in many cases I believe they will decide, that there are exceptional circumstances where private enterprise may be induced to carry out such developments to the advantage of the whole community, then too the matter is entirely within their discretion as to whether they grant a license to private companies or not.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, in supporting this amendment I appeal to the government whether it does not offer a temporary solution which should receive their favourable consideration, because I believe it takes from the arena of political discussion an issue which is ever becoming a more grievous, irritating sore from day to day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the hon.
member sits down, may I ask a question? He is an authority on the working out of the British Columbia Act. Is it necessary under that act that parliament should take action; or could it be done by order in council?


Charles A. Stewart: By order in council.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As I remember the act, it
is done by order in council; but the legislative body which has the sole responsibility in the matter can impose such conditions upon the government as it sees fit.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in considerable difficulty in discussing this question at the present stage. The original resolution proposed :
That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.
To this two amendments were moved, which were declared to be out of order. Then another amendment was proposed that the
words, "natural resources" be changed to "water-powers". Finally we have the amendment now under consideration.
It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that hon. gentlemen opposite have been arguing for three or four days in favour of taking more and more precautions in guarding our heritage of natural resources, particularly water-power sites; but that in supporting the last amendment they are arguing directly opposite, that is, to lessen the precautions. The hon. member (Mr. Stevens) who moved the amendment very kindly said he was coming to the aid of the members on this side to get them out of their dilemma. I hold that we are not in any dilemma, for I am quite convinced that we are on sound ground in opposing the amendment.
As the debate has been in progress for several days my observations will be very brief. At the present time six of the provinces have their natural resources, and negotiations are now pending having in view the transfer of their natural resources to the other three provinces. This has been the condition for a long time, and it may continue for a long time yet. We have had legal discussions as to the relative positions of the Dominion and the provinces in regard to water-power sites. In a general way, my understanding is that within the province controlling its own natural resources the provincial authority has jurisdiction over the banks and the bed of water courses, but that any navigation features are under the control of the federal authority. Surely it was never intended that the Dominion government should take advantage of that in order to interfere with- or impede or retard waterpower development. Within the provinces that have not their natural resources, this government would have control of all. So that the amendment simply means that the three provinces that have not their natural resources will have to come to this parliament before they can make use of their waterpower sites, whereas the six provinces who now have their natural resources will be able to go ahead and develop them in the interests of their own people. That, I claim, is not only an inferior but a humiliating position; and I claim further that it puts some of the provinces under the protetting wing of this parliament.
The members of the provincial legislatures have an opportunity to travel around their provinces and become acquainted with local conditions; they are in a position to decide what measures should be taken in regard to
678	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Gershaw
the development of water-power sites. The members of this parliament would have no such opportunity over the wide Dominion. So that this parliament would be asked to pass upon certain questions although it would be impossible for us to obtain the necessary information to enable us to come to a reasonable and a sound decision respecting those questions. If it is the idea further to prevent exploitation of our natural resources, why pick out only three provinces and leave the others as they are? Hon. members opposite have argued that we have tried to inject the question of provincial rights into this debate. I may assure them that nothing of the kind was our intention. We have the privilege of representing and speaking up for the people who sends us here and we wish to take advantage of that right, and nothing more. We who have visited the industries of the west and those of the east also know something of the magic which has been accomplished by white coal; we know how it can be transmitted long distances, and how it is revolutionizing modem industry. Last year in Canada more than half a million horse-power was developed, and more and more will be developed in the future. In Alberta the people are making a sincere effort to build up industry. The provincial government, the municipal and city councils and the associated boards of trade are all organizing and advertising and spending money and effort with the idea of building up industrial centres in the west. To do this they must have power, and the cheaper the power the greater will be their opportunity. They are investigating the power situation and are much interested in the whole question. I hope that the province of Alberta will soon get her natural resources, because I believe that the government and the people there are ready and able to deal with those resources. At the present time the agreement is being held up because of the subsidies. In Alberta a great deal of social work is undertaken by the government. At present they are advancing rural education, rural health clinics, and activities of that sort. If it were not for the profits, probably temporary profits, which they obtain from the liquor control, they would not be able to carry on that work, and I hope that increased subsidies will be given. But while they are holding out for increased subsidies,
I trust that they will not be placed at a disadvantage regarding their natural resources, as they would be through this resolution.
I find myself in agreement with the senti-

ments of the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) and therefore cannot vote for the amendment.


Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: I want to protest against the statement of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan), who always speaks in italics, that there is some attempt on the part of the province of Ontario to dictate to the province of Quebec. He was very loud and vehement in that suggestion. The people of Ontario are satisfied with their hydro-electric system. They are perfectly satisfied, and are so entirely devoted to the conduct of their own business that they are not in the habit of interfering with any other province. Some of us have shown some interest in trying to secure for the prairie provinces their natural resources, but that is a broad general question for the Dominion, which might properly engage the attention and efforts of any member of the house.
Coming to the issue before us, I am sure that hon. members who were here yesterday and were able to make a contrast between the attitude of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) and of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), must have been very deeply impressed, first, with the seriousness with which the Minister of the Interior treated the question, and the buffoonery of the Minister of Agriculture. Some person ought to tell the Minister of Agriculture that this is not a three ring circus.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I am sure it is
only a slip; the hon. member is too courteous to use such language.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Well, Mr. Speaker, the
minister conducted himself as if it were.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. I will ask the hon. member to set a good example.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Very well. Now I have sat with the Minister of the Interior for seven years and I have never seen him so much in earnest as he was yesterday; I have never seen him so excited, and I am bound to say that in my opinion there is a very good reason for it; because in my judgment the minister's conduct is not all that it should have been. We expect-at least I expect-something different from the Minister of the Interior. We do not expect on this side very much from most of the ministers over there. They have come down into this hotise and stated most positively, vigorously and emphatically that they were going to do so and so and then they have utterly failed to implement their promise. We all remember with what

Natural Resources-Mr. Hocken
emphasis the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) promised to lay upon the table of this house, and to bring before the house for discussion, the equal status that he brought back from Europe. And it was never heard of again. So that we have become accustomed to the statements of the Prime Minister being implemented or not implemented just according to the circumstances that may prevail after he has made his original statement. Because in that instance he was evidently led to revise his original statement. But it is a little different with the Minister of the Interior. We always expect him to keep his word and do what he promises. And in this instance, I think it may be said, he has not kept his word and has not done what he promised to this house and to the members from Manitoba.	.
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), in his very natural and keen desire to defend his fellow minister, tried to draw an analogy between this government interfering with the water-powers of Ontario and interfering with the water-powers of one of the western provinces. There is no analogy at all, and if three years ago this government had followed the advice given from this side of the house or had even permitted the debate of a resolution it is more than likely that to-day Manitoba would be in the position of Ontario with regard to these resources, and it would not be necessary for the Minister of the Interior to interfere at all. Three years ago an attempt was made to begin the transfer of these resources to the prairie provinces; I believe the Minister of the Interior laid on the table of the house an agreement with Alberta which was perfectly satisfactory to every member of the house with the exception of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). His interference at that time prevented the government from beginning the transfer of the resources to the western provinces, and after the government weakly permitted that agreement to remain on the table of the house so that we could not discuss it; after they refused to implement that agreement and sent a man west with another agreement; after they dragged this thing along through the courts and delayed it in other ways for three years, they are solely responsible for the conditions existing to-day and the trouble in which they find themselves at present. If the resources had been transferred to Alberta at that time (Manitoba would have had her resources by now, and would have had absolute control of her water-powers.
I disagree with the statements which have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite that this government has nothing to do but take
the word of the government of a province in these matters. As a general rule I agree with that, but here was a case where a responsible minister promised the members from Manitoba in a statement made in this house that this license would not be granted until all the differences had been adjusted. His promise' was that this would go before the legislature of the province of Manitoba.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg my
hon. friend's pardon; I certainly cannot stand for that, although I am standing for a good deal.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That is what I undesrtand the minister promised the members from Manitoba.


Charles A. Stewart: Then I am sorry that my hon. friend misunderstands the situation.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: At all events, the differences which exist there and which have existed for some time have not been removed, and the minister promised that this license would not be issued until they were removed.


Charles A. Stewart: I shall not
interrupt my hon. friend again, but I must say I did not make any such wide promise.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is here in Hansard.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not whait you say.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Yes, what I say.


Charles Avery Dunning: Then read it again; it
has been read over a dozen times already.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Here is what the minister
said:	_
I may assure my hon. friend that until that difference of opinion is settled I am not going to issue any license for that water-power. 1 think I may assure my hon. friend of that.
The differences have not been settled, because if they had been settled this debate would not have taken place.


Charles Avery Dunning: Pretty cute at taking a
statement completely out of its context.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will read it all if you
wish.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is very unfair to the
minister.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Will my hon. friend name one of them? They have been all tabled and the Seven Sisters lease is the only one which has been mentioned in this debate. Will my hon. friend back up his insinuation by naming another case? All these transactions have been tabled in this house.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I will say this, sir, that when the Saddle Lake reserve was opened up it was done in such a way that it had to be reopened and a second sale held, because a few men on the inside had gathered in the whole area which had been opened for settlement. That is one case.


Charles Avery Dunning: And what did the minister do?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: There is another case up m Wetaskiwin just about as bad, so it is not only the water-powers.


Charles A. Stewart: To what sale is my hon. friend referring?


Horatio Clarence Hocken: My hon. friend from Athabasca (Mr. Kellner) tried to get the facts m this connection. It appears that a man named Conroy had a lease for a large area in that district.


Charles A. Stewart: That is correct.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: He secured that lease and never used it except to re-let the land to other persons, and he used land which he had no right to use for pasturage and for other purposes.


Charles A. Stewart: That is news to me.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is in the correspondence. However, Mr. Speaker, whatever may be said about the leases and all that kind of thing going on up there, in which it is charged by those living in the district that gross favoritism is displayed, I do not see how any member especially from Manitoba could refuse to vote for the amendment which is designed to protect the water powers of that province. That is what I would prefer to vote for, but my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) has been so exceedingly generous in his treatment of the case that he has given the government a chance to get out of their present dilemma.


Charles Avery Dunning: Given you a chance, you mean.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: No, I am not in any dilemma; I always steer clear of them, but I should think the government would) accept the amendment proposed by the hon. member for "V ancouver Centre, because certainly it would let them out of a very awkward position. If they do mot accept the amendment my preference would be to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and I think that is a reasonable thing no matter how we may quibble about it. It is the only possible way to protect what is left of the natural resources of the province of Manitoba with respect to water powers. That is all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, before I
refer to the amendment to the amendment may I say a word with respect to a matter of procedure in this house in connection with amendments. It is customary, when amendments are being proposed from the opposite side of the house or when important motions are to be introduced to which the government is expected to make an immediate reply, that in advance the government will be supplied with a copy of the proposed amendment or motion. I do not say for a moment that my hon. friend, who has presented the amendment we are now considering and who is an old parliamentarian, intended in any way to overlook that practice; I am sure it was a mere oversight on his part, but since he intimated in his remarks that his desire was to find some common ground on which all members of the house could unite I think it would have facilitated what he had in view if before beginning his remarks he had intimated that he would move an amendment, and had in advance supplied the government with a copy of it. Hon. members will see in a moment that especially where reference is made to some statute passed years ago with special application to a particular province, the government cannot be expected, having a sense of its responsibility in matters of this kind, to accept immediately and in an offhand way a suggestion which may involve many factors not apparent, on the surface, and to which some thought and consideration must necessarily be given. I would suggest to hon. members that this practice, which is one of the oldest of parliamentary usages, should be followed on all occasions vrhere the desire is not to take the government unawares for the purpose of obtaining some snap verdict, but rather for the purpose of having a deliberate opinion expressed by those who are responsible.

Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King
May I say a word with regard to the amendment to the amendment. The original motion was a very broad one in its application; it related to the disposition of all natural resources. It soon became aparent, both to the mover of the motion (Mr. Woodsworth) and to hon. gentlemen opposite who have spoken in support of it, that they had gone much too far; that as a matter of fact they were advocating something which they had come to see was really unwise and unworkable. They began a retreat and sought to discover some means of gracefully accomplishing that retreat; at that stage the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) came forward to extricate his forces and introduced an amendment which limited very considerably the scope of the original motion. Instead of a further consideration of all natural resources, the acting leader of the opposition brought in an amendment which limited the subject matter to water-powers. That was a considerable step backward from the original motion which had been receiving the support of hon. gentlemen opposite. But my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) after he had brought forward his amendment discovered that he too had gone too far, and 'began to look around for a chance again to retreat. It was not the members on this side of the house who were ini a dilemma, as the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) has suggested; it was the acting leader of the opposition who found that he had introduced an amendment which was against the interests of the western provinces. Between yesterday and to-day he and the members of his party have 'been in conference as to how they could get out of the particular predicament into which they had fallen through that amendment. So in order to help the acting leader of the opposition out of his difficulty, the horn, member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), his left bower at the moment, comes along with an amendment to the amendment. That is a unique spectacle, if I may use a word which has been adapted more than once in this debate;- we have the acting leader of the opposition declaring a policy and then we have one of his followers asking, with his consent, that this parliament do. not accept the policy which the acting leader has put forward but accept something much less important and significant.
We sympathize with the hon. gentlemen in their dilemma and we will go as far as we can to help them out. We are as anxious as they are to have this matter settled in a manner which may meet if that is possible, with unanimity in this house. So long as
the house understands exactly what it is being committed to, there is no reason why we should not be in agreement with respect to the amendment to the amendment which has been moved by the member for Vancouver Centre. This amendment brings us back to the position this government has been asserting all along. My hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) drew attention to the fact that we had been stressing provincial rights, had been stressing the right of the provinces of the Dominion to their own resources and that we were seeking to have those resources administered by the provinces as speedily as possible. He says to us, "That being the case, why will you' not accept my amendment? it only asks you to do that much." I may say to my hon. friend that we are prepared to accept his amendment if that is the significance of it, but in accepting it I want to have a distinct understanding with the house as to just exactly what we are accepting so that there will be no misunderstanding later on and the onus placed on the wrong shoulders with respect to the consequences of certain phases in the legislation which my hon. friend is anxious we should accept.
May I read one or two significant clauses in the Railway Belt Water Act so that hon. members will see exactly what is being proposed. Subsection 2 of section 5 of the act, which is chapter 211 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, reads as follows:
2. Subject to the property in and the rights to the use of water referred to in subsection one hereof,	_	_
(a) all water without distinction within the railway belt shall, during the pleasure of the governor in council, for the purposes of administration be under the control of the authorities of the province of British Columbia and be administered under and in accordance with the water acts, as if the said acts were enacted by the parliament of Canada subject to the provisions of this act, and the officers and authorities having powers and duties to exercise and perform under the provisions of the water acts shall have the like powers and authority with respect to or in connection with the administration of the said water,
Section 7 of the act reads as follows:
The governor in council may, at any time, repeal the provisions of section five of this act, by proclamation to be published in the Canada Gazette, and upon the repeal of the said section. the water shall be administered under regulations to be made by the governor in council.
I wish to direct the attention of the house to the fact that this legislation begins and ends with action by the governor in council. If we should accept this act, I do not wish to be told by hon. gentlemen opposite that we are proceeding to govern by orders in
682	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Mackenzie King
council. They have been condemning us day after day for doing certain things under orders in council and now come along and ask us to accept an act which contains provisions that certain things shall be subject to the action and approval of the governor in council. Let me repeat, if we accept this act, I do not want hon. gentlemen to say, when we act under it, that we are proceeding under orders in council and that instead we should be coming to parliament for some ratification which the act says nothing about.
My hon. friend (Mr. Stewart) has mentioned that at the time this act was passed certain provincial acts for the administration of water-powers within the province were in effect; also that there was a certain area referred to in this particular act, the railway belt, which was under the control of the Dominion government. In so far as the water-powers in that particular area were concerned, this act took them from under the control of the federal government and transferred them to the province of British Columbia to be administered under the water acts of that province. My hon. friend suggests that similar provision should now be made with respect to water-powers in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I must direct his attention to the fact that at the present moment those prov-vinces have no water acts under which they could administer these resources; they will have to legislate in order to give themselves authority to administer these water-powers once they come under their control. That is the reason the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) instead of the government of Manitoba had to act with regard to the lease of the Seven Sisters falls; the Manitoba government could not take these resources, administer them and give the contract which was necessary as it had not the existent powers required to administer the resources as would have been the case had Manitoba had water acts similar to those which the province of British Columbia had prior to the time this act was passed. In accepting this amendment we must not be asked to tie up the whole development of the 'western power resources in the interval between this moment and the time at which the provinces pass the necessary legislation in the nature of water acts to give them the power of administration which they will require.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The government will always do it on the request of the governments of the provinces?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was coming to that. In the interval we shall be prepared to

do exactly what we are doing now-to proceed in accordance with the wishes of the provinces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then the amendment to the amendment does not mean anything.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am telling my hon. friend what it means. I am not responsible for the amendment to the amendment; I am responsible only for accepting or rejecting it. I am saying, and I have told my hon. friend frankly that the amendment to the amendment in effect does not mean anything more than what we are now doing, but if we were to refuse to accept it we would be told pretty soon that something very plausible and reasonable had been proposed and we had refused to accept it. I do not intend to have the government put in that position. I am going to accept the amendment to the amendment, but in so doing I want it clearly understood what we are accepting.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In accepting it, will the government not be accepting the principle that hereafter the water-powers in the three western provinces will be granted and developed subject to provincial legislation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly, and
that is what we are prepared and anxious to do. That has been our position all along and anything that will help to bring that about more rapidly than any other method, provided it has not some snare or pitfall in it, we are quite prepared to accept.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: May I ask just for the purpose of elucidation:	Does it not imply that
those water-powers will be administered by the governments of the respective provinces without any interference whatsoever on the part of the parliament of Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Just as soon as they pass the legislation. They will have to enact legislation giving them power to administer those resources.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does it not imply, therefore, that hereafter the legislatures of the respective provinces will have exclusive power and control instead of the governments of the respective provinces, as is the case now, having control indirectly through their negotiations with the Minister of the Interior?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Our intention and purpose would undoubtedly be to get the administration solely under the control of the provinces, so that the provinces will become wholly responsible for it, but the act itself
6S3

Natural Resources-Mr. Guthrie
does not go that far. Let me read the section to my hon. friend, because it is all-important. I read it once before. Section 7 of the present act that we are asked to accept reads:
The governor in council may, at any time, repeal the provisions of section five of this act, by proclamation to be published in the Canada Gazette, and upon the repeal of the said section, the water shall be administered under regulations to be made by the governor in council.
That is the control the government reserves to itself in case resources were being improperly administered. But it could be used to wipe out the whole (thing if the government's policy were-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But this has remained for
seventeen years and each government in succession, Liberal or Conservative or Unionist, has felt that so long as the water-powers were being honestly administered, it was not their duty or function to interfere.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is this an application to
all the other provinces of clause 6 of the order in council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has the right point. It is an endeavour to put Saskatchewan and Alberta into the position in which Manitoba has already been placed whereby, so far as possible, the will of the governments and legislatures of the respective provinces will be carried out. That is the position. My hon. friend is quite right. The government would not wish to pass legislation of this character unless we were sincere in our desire to let the provinces have full responsibility. The clause which I have just read is, as I gather it, a safeguard by the federal administration to protect against acts which, as my hon. friend has just said, might be questionable in some particular. With the understanding that my hon. friend is not asking us to do more than is possible without prejudicing the rights of the provinces, namely, that before this particular act becomes applicable in the extended1 way in which it is now requested, before legislation is passed in this parliament to extend its provisions to the three western provinces, and before the three western provinces themselves have enacted legislation which will give them powers of administration, the effect of the suggested legislation shall not become binding on anyone, and that in the interval the water resources of the three western provinces will be administered by the federal government in accordance with the wishes of the provincial governments-with that understanding, I say
that we are quite prepared to accept the amendment of my hon. friend opposite. I take it that his amendment is in the main a declaration of principle and I am accepting that principle in the fullest manner in which I believe it is possible for the government to implement it.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon.
friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) in opening his remarks this afternoon seemed to think that I am in some kind of a dilemma in respect of the amendment I moved in the house last Thursday. I can only say that I do not find myself in any dilemma whatever in regard to that amendment. That amendment was drawn as an amendment to the main motion as it then stood, a motion which I did not approve, as in my judgment it went too far. By that amendment I limited the application of the motion as presented to the house by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) and the principle embraced in the amendment I moved is, I am satisfied, absolutely sound.
My right hon. friend is wrong in another surmise, that in some way I, as temporary leader of the Conservative party in the house, have been a party to framing a subamendment in order to get myself out of some dilemma. That is pure surmise on the part of my right hon. friend. I am free to admit this-and under other similar circumstances I would admit it-that at any time a new proposal is presented to me, as it was in this case this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens), as one that might meet with the approval of the house, I have no hesitation in saying that I will accept it under those circumstances. Indeed I think it is my duty to do so; and I may add that I had had no prior consultation with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre when he brought this matter to my attention before the meeting of the house this afternoon. I think it is a better proposal than that embodied either in the motion or in my amendment, a more workable one and one that achieves the end we seek in regard to this matter.
What have we overcome? The principle which has been acted upon by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) in the instance spoken of most frequently during the course of the debate is in my judgment an improper principle. It may be justified by the law of the country as it stands to-day; nevertheless that law is in my opinion founded upon an improper principle. Why should the Minister of the Interior be permitted on a matter of great public importance to be carrying on, unknown to this parliament, what is a

Natural Resources-Mr. Guthrie
secret negotiation or arrangement with the government of a province of the Dominion, in breach of a very strong assurance which the minister himself gave to this house on the 6th of June of last year? Our objection is that these negotiations are carried on secretly by one government with another, under the guise of orders in council, and that, in my opinion, is a pernicious principle when any part of the public domain of this country is involved. Our aim was, so far as it was possible, to stop further operations by this government or by any minister of this government in respect to these natural resources which the Dominion still owns and controls. The object sought to be achieved by the subamendment is to allow the legislatures of the three provinces named in the subamendment to have execlusive control of these natural resources when they are transferred to the provinces.


Lucien Cannon: Not the legislatures.


Hugh Guthrie: Not the government, but the legislatures of the provinces named, as they are named, in the subamendment.


Lucien Cannon: Is there any section of the Railway Belt Water Act which says "the legislature" of the province? It is the government of the province.


Hugh Guthrie: It says the province of
British Columbia, and this -subamendment expressly mentions the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Lucien Cannon: But not the legislatures.


Hugh Guthrie: And not the governments.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under the water-powers acts, which are legislative enactments of the provinces. '


Mr. RYCKMAN:: If the Solicitor General
(Mr. Cannon) will look at the interpretation clause he will see that it is the board of investigation which has jurisdiction under the waters acts of the provinces.


Hugh Guthrie: I submit that if this subamendment carries it will to a very large extent obviate the difficulties which the country has experienced under the former mode of operation. We will have achieved our end in that respect, and I congratulate my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the graceful manner in which he has accepted the amendment and got out of the dilemma in which he and his government found themselves, particularly with regard to his supporters in this house from the province of Manitoba.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: We had the spectacle during this debate on a motion of a private member of four or five rather excited1 ministerial utterances, a thing that does not very often happen in this house, particularly in regard to a private members' motion. Anyone could see, an observer from the galleries of this chamber could instantly recognize that this government was in a dilemma, as regards not only its supporters from the province of Manitoba, but the great bulk of the people of this Dominion. This government has been rebuked by its own press for the manner in which it has conducted these negotiations. But now that we have given the Prime Minister the opportunity of getting himself out of the dilemma in which some of his ministers have placed him, I think he should tender his full thanks to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre for having brought up his amendment.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: I wish to say a few words on the amendment to the amendment. The Prime Minister has made a declaration of policy but what this parliament needs is a bonfire made of the Dominion Water Power Act and to recover control by parliament of this work. There will be no cheap power for the people of this country so long as that act remains in existence. The Prime Minister has burned his bridges behind him. He seems to do everything by fits and starts, and nothing long on this water-power question. The other day when the question of water-powers was being discussed he abandoned as a waif and orphan and outcast the St. Lawrence waterway and the power that is to be developed therefrom. He seems to have a new policy for every hour of the day with something new to promise and employ. As a public-ownership supporter for some thirty years in the province of Ontario, I want to tell you that you are just going around in a circle by all these acts. The Railway Belt Water Act, chapter 211 of the statutes of 1927 relating to British Columbia, has been on the statute books since 1912, but it is not legislative enactments and decisions by the courts that give cheap light and power to the people of this country. It is the men who are behind the enterprise. This parliament has been going around in a circle during this past week with regard to this particular proposition. The original resolution deals with the natural resources, while the amendment deals only with water-powers. The time has come for this parliament to have charge of the granting of these water-powers.

Natural Resources-Mr. Church
If the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) has been guilty of an error, it was an error of judgment. Do not let us blame the minister; let us blame parliament. The Dominion Water Powers Act is twenty-five years behind the times. The annual report of the Department of the Interior for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1928, states on page 110:
On January 1, 1928, the total water-wheel and tumbine installation throughout the Dominion amounted to 4,777,921 horse-power or only a little more than 11 per cent of the possible development. A very conservative estimate places the capital investment in the generation, transmission, and distribution at $875,000,000, a sum greater than that invested in any other single manufacturing industry in Canada.
An analysis of the utilization of the present installation indicates that
(1)	3,904,678 horse-power, or 81-7 per cent of the total, is installed in central electric stations for general public distribution.
(2)	528,731 horse-power, or 11-1 per cent, is installed in pulp and paper mills which, in addition, use power purchased from the central electric stations to the extent of approximately
775.000	horse-power.
(3)	344,512 horse-power, or 7-2 per cent, is installed in_ general industrial enterprise for electro-chemical reduction, manufacturing lumber. flour milling and other purposes.
The fact that the high average of 502 horsepower of hydraulic installation is available per
1.000	of population, is significant in an era when the industrial prosperity of a county is so closely linked with the amount of mechanical power available to its workers, and in this rega'rd Canada occupies a most advantageous position amongst the countries of the world.
New installation during 1927 amounted to 221,655 horse-power, or a little less than during 1926. This figure gives no indication of the intense activity in hydro-electric construction during the year which will result in an additional installation of about 378,000 horse-power being completed by midsummer of 1928, whilst other developments upon which construction has begun or is about to begin will, it is anticipated, increase the installation by a further 2,000,000 horse-power by the end of 1930.
It is up to this house and parliament to adopt a new policy with regard to the granting of water-powers. Only eleven per cent of the power Canada possesses is yet developed. Change our policy before it is too late.
The subamendment of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) is very good as far as it goes. It provides that the prairie provinces shall have light and power laws of their own making after the fashion of the Railway Belt Water Act, 1912. I shall support the amendment on the ground that it means home rule for the western provinces. It will get way from the old policy that has prevailed in the past of the administration of these natural resources by a department of this government. It is the only proper policy to give to the three prairie provinces their water-powers free of all restrictions, and let them
lay down a hydro-electric policy of their own along the lines of the Ontario system in conjunction and in partnership with the municipalities. There is no doubt that the Prime Minister has grasped at this subamendment like a drowning man at a straw and has burned his bridges behind him to stem the tide of criticism over the bungle made of the Seven Sisters site.
Might I ask the Prime Minister if it is also proposed to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) with regard to the Beauhamois project and immediately issue a permit? That project will destroy the whole hydro-electric system in the province of Ontario. The province of Ontario is to get power at the rate of $15 per horse-power, but at the end of the contract the price will be raised sky-high and may be nearer $40 or $50 per horse-power, and while a few dollars may be saved to-day, it will cost the province in years to come many millions of dollars to get a ransom and freedom.
Yesterday the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. McRae) characterized the exploitation of water-power sites in the United States as the crime of the century. Undoubtedly he is right. There was a great fight in Los Angeles between conflicting interests over the development of cheap light and power, and the legislature of California was compelled to pass a statute to control the development of water-powers and regulate the earnings and rates of the power companies. That should be done here. The people want the government to lay down a policy. Every session for the past seven years we have had battles in this house on this power question, and I have brought forward the power question in an attempt for seven years to get the government to declare its policy. In 1924 the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario applied for the right to develop and generate power at Morrisburg, an application similar to that made by the Beauhamois interests, but the government declined to grant the commission license to proceed. The hydro forces were routed in the battle of the Morrisburg dam. In 1927 this government was repulsed on the Ottawa river in what is known as the battle of the Carillon. For six weeks the government did not know whether they were for the Sifton proposal or against it. The government were not only repulsed, they were routed and put to flight in that particular Carillon battle. Last session the government were nearly defeated in what is known as the first battle of the Beauhamois, when the yeas were 54
6S6

Natural Resources-Mr. Church
and the nays 58 on my motion for the six-months' hoist of that proposition. We are looking for another battle along the same lines. Now there has been a fight in Winnipeg, and the Bracken government has capitulated.
The second battle of the Seven Sisters falls and the third battle of the Beauharnois power site will be carried to the polls, because it is the electors who are going to settle these questions. The principle involved will not be settled by the Prime Minister running away from a declaration of policy. This battle will be decided in the polling booths, and the people are going to demand that for all time there shall be a national waterpower policy for each province. As far as I can see, the Liberal party has deserted its principles in its treatment of the natural resources of the western provinces. The members of that party must take full responsibility before the electorate for their failure to compel the government to lay down a policy regarding cheap light and power. Where does the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) stand on this question? He is the only cabinet minister from Manitoba. Is he in favour of public ownership in his province? In the last election the party now led by Premier Bracken appealed to the people on a public ownership policy, but they were not twenty-four hours in office before they threw overboard their principles and pledges, and surrendered to the Winnipeg Electric Company. And where does the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) stand on this particular question? After all, cheap light and power means more to the toiler than to anybody else. Both the Minister of Labour and his colleague the Minister of Immigration have yet to be heard from. The Backuses, the Holts, the Gundys, the Joneses, the Sweezeys and the other financial barons can all come down to parliament and get away with the water-powers of the country over parliament's head and many of the people. Why, the hon. gentleman from St. Lawrenee-St. George (Mr. Cahan) propose to give some of them the Beauharnois power site.
We are told that this parliament is not concerned, that the government is absolute, and that parliament has no more to do with it than the pyramids of Egypt. Well, whatever may be said in favour of the party system, I think it has not maintained the prestige of this house on this power question. The decay of our influence has been particularly noticeable during the past few weeks. The House of Commons in Canada is becoming not a ruling body, let alone a critical body.

Ministers who now rule are in reality not ministers of the crown. The rigidity of the party system has marked the decay of the House of Commons. The party that wins a majority Obtains automatically absolute control regardless of the wishes of the crown or of the country. As the franchise is more and more extended the party machinery has also been strengthened with the attendant result of the decay of parliament and of parliamentary institutions. In some of the provinces even the opposition in reality exists in name only and we have a one-man legislature, whose word is law and the assembly is powerless. The commission system has also deprived parliament of a lot of its powers and prerogatives mostly for the gain of selfish interests. Canada has just got a new status without the authority or knowledge or consent of the electorate.
The granting of the license to the Winnipeg Electric Company to develop the Seven Sisters water-power site has been justified by those in favour of it, or at least they have attempted to justify its alienation by pointing to the report of Doctor T. H. Hogg. I cannot understand how the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario, a public ownership body, released Doctor Hogg for any such purpose. In the olden days every child knew who was the chairman of that commission, but now you have to consult a directory to find out. Sir Adam Beck was the champion of public ownership, and every official of the commission had to follow him. To-day the chairman has slept at his post, and for two or three years past there has been no active support of Sir Adam Beck's policy. The chairman has refused to fight the battles of public ownership, and he let the engineer of the commission, Doctor Hogg, recommend the handing over of the Seven Sisters power site to a private corporation. Let me say to Doctor Hogg that he cannot serve two masters in this Seven Sisters proposition. He is described as Doctor Hogg. Well, the first prescription he issued in Manitoba has about electrocuted the Bracken cabinet, and it may have something to do with the electrocution in the next election of some hon. gentlemen opposite from that province. The west has little to hope for from the Prime Minister regarding a solution of the coal question or the railway question. The government have made a political football of the coal question in the west, they have made a political football of the natural resources of this country, .now they are making a political football of

Natural Resources-Mr. Church
this water-power proposition. I have very little hope of any solution of the question from that quarter.
The amendment is on the principle that if the House of Commons is not to lose its influence as a representative institution no disposition of the natural resources under the control of the federal government shall be effective until ratified by parliament. Only by asserting legislative control over our natural resources will it be possible to prevent their exploitation by powerful monopolies. The present family compact in this regard in my opinion is worse than the family compact of 1837. It may be urged that the terms of the present contracts with these monopolistic power companies are favourable to the consumers of electric current, but I fear when the time comes for those contracts to be renewed such prohibitive rates will be insisted on as will cripple the industrial development of this country, and the labour of generations yet unborn will be adversely affected and mortgaged.
To-day the west instead of being exclusively agricultural is fast becoming an industrial country. The extension of hydraulic power in Manitoba will be a great boon in providing cheap light and power. It is not intended for the city man alone; it is intended for the farmer, the housewife, the toiler, and the worker in every industrial centre. The extension of cheap light and power will serve to retain the rural population, it will assist in the work the good roads movement is doing, and it will help to solve rural economic problems. It is the means to the end of solving the troublesome question of men, money and markets. A low cost of hydraulic power, for city and farmer alike, means better homes, higher standards of living, reduced hours of labour, improved health and happiness, better crops and generally improved conditions. Cheap light and power would bring about a revolution in agriculture and would greatly improve conditions of labour on the farm. It would make for the joy of living on the farm. It would be a genuine boon to the farmer who is now ground down under long hours of strenuous labour, and who is faced periodically with bad times and poor prices. The question of farm relief is uppermost in the United States to-day as well as in this country, and one cannot emphasize too strongly the benefits to be derived from a proper system of hydraulic power when extended by rural lines to the farm at cost.
I have here a table showing what can be accomplished by man-power and machinery to-day in agricultural development. This table
is taken from the bulletin of the National City bank of New York for December, 1928, and the facts it discloses are quite illuminating. There is also in the bulletin an article by Professor E. A. Stewart of the State Agricultural college of Minnesota, in which this writer shows what has been done by means of cheap light and power and modern machinery in that great state for the farmers, who are now operating under improved conditions. The article shows the effect of cheap light and power in the matter of economy, improved prices and the solution of the very vexed question of depopulation in rural communities.
The province of Manitoba is ito-day in the position which Ontario occupied in 1905. At that time the last concession of 20,000 horsepower in the Niagara river was given away by the Ross government. Sir James Whitney then came in and, with Sir Adam Beck, launched the hydro movement, with the result that 868,000 horse-power are developed on the Niagara river to-day for the use of the people. A similar boon the province of Manitoba could have to-morrow if it adopted a sound hydro policy. What is needed not only in Manitoba but in Saskatchewan and Alberta as well is a proper municipal hydro policy for the development of hydro-electric power along the lines I suggest. But instead of taking steps in that direction this government is content to give away the water-powers of the country to private interests, making millionaires out of some people at the expense of the population at large-and this without the consent of parliament. In this case the government is acting without the consent of the legislature of Manitoba or of this parliament.
I am bound to say that I am very much ' dissatisfied with the whole policy of this government not only in connection with the Seven Sisters falls but also with respect to the Beauharnois power scheme, the Chicago diversion, and the administration of the Water Powers Act. I contend that a bonfire should be made of the Water Powers Act which is fifty years out of date, and a new policy adopted by parliament, so that the executive should no longer rule but that this parliament should decide upon what terms and conditions leases ought to be granted with respect to these water-powers, which are the property of the people of Canada. There has never been a country on the face of the globe so rich in water-powers as the Dominion of Canada. Yet only 11 per cent of this power is developed, 89 per cent being undeveloped. I say, there was never a country for which

Natural Resources-Mr. Church
Providence has done so much and1 man so little; Providence has given us a great heritage, but we are doing nothing to preserve that heritage for the people who are to come.
The Ontario hydro-electric policy, or pattern, I urge, should be extended to the three prairie provinces, giving them home rule in this respect. And this is largely a labour policy. More than that, it is a protectionist policy. But in this regard,, as in other respects, hon, gentlemen opposite are free traders; they believe in giving away the property of the Canadian people, as Santa Claus gives away toys from the Christmas tree. They have been giving away to their favourites the water-powers that belong to the people of this country. I repeat, the hydro-electric policy which we have in Ontario is a protection policy. Sir Adam Beck fought the battle of the masses against the classes in Ontario, protecting the masses of the people of that province against their oppressors, the light and power grabbers. He redeemed the province of Ontario from the slavery of high cost light and power, in the real sense of those terms, by giving them cheap light and power and transportation as well at cost. That is what will have to be done in Manitoba, and' tomorrow in Saskatchewan and Alberta as well. The Tolmie government out on the Pacific coast has also, a great opportunity with regard to cheap light and power if it will only adopt a hydro-electric policy in that great province, which gets so little from this government. It will make for a greater industrial Pacific province. The hope of that province is in the Tolmie administration. They will not be found wanting.
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) professes to have a great regard for the working man, but he utterly ignores the policy of the Labour people; forgetting their principles, he supports a policy like this, the object of which is merely to hand over to private interests the property of the people of Canada, without let or hindrance. The policy of the government in relation to this matter marks the decline of parliament, and it shows us how badly this country stands in need of a new policy for the development of our water-powers. The Minister of Labour describes himself as a deep sea diver. Well, may I point out to him that the principles of liberalism, about which we hear so much to-day, were long ago dumped on the scrap heap and have now been consigned like McGinty to the bottom of the sea. In the action of the government with reference to the Seven Sisters falls the minister, along with his colleagues, has thrown overboard all the principles of true liberalism

and of labour. I ask the Minister of Labour now-he says he is a deep sea diver-to go down to the bottom of the sea and rescue those principles. Let him bring them up from the dark unfathomed caves of ocean and get his party and the government to do something with them.
The Minister of Labour is fond of making addresses in behalf of Labour. What has he done in this great war declared against the rights of the people in the matter of water-powers? Was he lined up with those who were concerned in protecting the working classes in Winnipeg and the farmers of Manitoba when these particular water-powers at the Seven Sisters were handed over, over the heads of the people's representatives? Was he opposing the surrender of these rights to private interests who wish to exploit them for greed and gain?
The people of Manitoba will not be really prosperous until their water-powers are conserved for their own use. The labour man in that province as well as in Ontario and Quebec pays not only the cost of his light and power but also interest on a capitalization of millions of dollars. Now what is the situation with respec't to the Beauharno'is proposition? The Prime Minister-if he does not run away to-morrow from what he said yesterday-proposes to give the Beauhamois people a permit under the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It has been said, of course, that parliament can intervene, by section 12 of that act, and revoke the permit. I contend that parliament cannot do so. A private bill will have to be introduced, and it will go to the foot of the list for the session after its first reading. When the contract is completed it will cost them tens of millions of dollars, because then the Beauhamois people will raise their rate for direct current. That is what happened in the Niagara district when the "big clean-up" deal was put through; the city of Toronto had to pay $32,000,000 to rescue the citizens of Toronto from the clutches of the privately-owned power companies. In the Financial Post of Toronto, shortly after Sir Adam Beck's death, appeared the following:
Beck died at the height of a public ownership movement that swept him into a position of power and mastery that no other man in Canada has held. The hydro will likely disintegrate as a single institution into a number of smaller corporations, some publicly, and in time, many privately owned, but all linked in a superpower chain.
Is that what is to become of the investment of $300,000,000 made by the people of Ontario

Natural Resources-Mr. Church
if they link up with the Beauharnois power movement set out so fully by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George?
Reference has been made to new Ontario; why is it that new Ontario is controlled by private corporations to-day? The reason is that in 1907, 1908 and 1909, Sir Adam Beck and the hydro municipalities wanted Sir James Whitney to bring the joy of cheap light and power to the mining camps of that country, and electrify the Temiskaming and Northern railway, but he did not see fit to do so, with the result that private corporations from the United States gained control of that whole mining country and kept new Ontario back twenty-five years. Instead of our present silver production of about $18,000,000 and gold production of about $16,000,000, together with a very small population, if hydro had gone into that territory we would have a population now of about a half to three-quarters of a million with a gold: and silver production of over $100,000,000 a year. Now the Ferguson government 'has to go into northern Ontario and buy out many of these private companies and pay a huge sum to do so.


Hewitt Bostock: Order: I cannot hear the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Langton Church: I simply give this as an illustration of what happens when we allow private corporations to control these utilities. That has been the experience of new Ontario; to-morrow it will happen with reference to the Beauharnois development, and the day after to-morrow this will be the result of the Seven Sisters lease. If these privately-owned corporations are allowed to go on in this way, the day will come in the prairies and elsewhere to buy them out, and the people will pay.
The Minister of Public Works has heard the Beauharnois case, but he was not allowed to sit alone; he was provided with two official guardians, one of them being the Minister of the Interior who has handed over the Seven Sisters site to the Winnipeg Electric Company and its friends. No doubt we will hear in a few days that the Beauharnois proposition has been passed over the head of parliament, and there is no use saying parliament can revoke a license once given. As the leader of the opposition pointed out the other night parliament cannot revoke a water-power permit without, as I say, being brought into the exchequer court and forced to pay damages for the loss sustained by the private company as they will have vested rights. Then the argument was advanced that under section 12 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act these 7S594-44
licenses can be cancelled. I have a bill under that section ready to introduce as soon as this permit is granted; all I can do is to bring in.a bill saying that the order in council is hereby annulled, but that bill will be read a first time and then go to the bottom of the list.
Last session the government were asked to lay on the table of the house all papers in connection with the Beauharnois scheme; that request was repeated this year, but those papers have not yet been brought down and those re the Seven Sisters site only at the beginning of last week. So far as the people of this country are concerned, as the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) has said, the whole question of water-powers some day or other must be decided by the privy council. That is one court where we can get some decision as to the division of authority as between the federal and provincial governments. As my hon. friend pointed out, before the Supreme Court of Canada, counsel for the Dominion contended there was no water-power in Canada on any navigable stream which the Dominion could not expropriate without paying compensation, and could develop it and sell this power to the people. These questions will have to be decided sooner or later; it has been pointed out already that the questions put to the supreme court were not properly drawn; they should have been framed jointly by the Dominion and the provinces, and in any event this question will have to go eventually to the privy council. There is no use in passing additional legislation; some private company affected by this legislation will take the question to the privy council eventually and you will not make any headway with regard to water-powers until the court of last resort -has laid down under the British North America Act what are the separate powers and rights of -the Dominion and the provinces. No question is settled until it -is settled aright rather than making a football of things to kill time till after the next elections are over.
If the central provinces of Canada do not wish to develop and generate power themselves I think it would be good politics for hon. gentlemen opposite to adopt a national hydro-electric policy on the St. Lawrence from canal works in order to protect the working people in central Canada from paying rates on millions of dollars of invested capital held by private corporations, and sell this power at cost to the two provinces. In my opinion a decision of -that kind would be in the public interest, because I have very little faith in anything being done with regard

Private Bills

to the preservation, and conservation of these water-powers for the whole people not only-in central Canada but in the west as well. We have seen how this works in the United States; the late President Roosevelt pointed out how the water-powers had been frittered away, and he stated that posterity would have to pay millions of dollars to regain them. I think the example of Ontario in the light and power movement should serve as an illustration to the three western provinces. The twenty-five years of cheap light and power which Ontario enjoyed is an example to the other provinces of the Dominion. The only way to learn anything with regard to the light and power situation is from example and not by adopting the mistakes which have been made by some of the older provinces. Some of them have parted with their water-powers in the same way that Santa Claus hands out presents from the Christmas tree. Ontario provides a lesson on the results of a forward hydro policy for the prairie provinces. The net results in Ontario I sum up' as follows:
In these paragraphs we have the result of what the Hydro-Electric has done:
1.	Every dollar of the $160,000,000 hydro investment is earning interest and sinking fund.
2.	Hydro investment saved Ontario from a coal famine that would have bankrupt the province in war time.
3.	Hydro investment saved 2,200,000 shareholders over $75,000,000 in reduced coal, light and power bills.
4.	Hydro investment saved Ontario over $100,000,000 on coal prices, which would have gone ix>
$30 per ton in war time but for the hydro investment that gave Ontario the equivalent of 3,000,000 tons of United States coal per annum.
That is what was accomplished in Ontario, and we should endeavour to see that the water-powers of the country are preserved for posterity.
The amendment of the acting leader of the opposition is such that the executive or administrative side of the government would no longer have control of the parting with these magnificent water-powers, but parliament should recover the same and conserve them for the people.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 64, respecting Chartered Trust and Executor Company.-Mr. Lawson.

Bill No. 70, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Ferland.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 17, respecting The Quebec Railway Light and Power Company.-Mr. Parent.
Bill No. 18, to incorporate Canadian Reinsurance Corporation.-Mr. Mercier (St. Henri).
Bill No. 19, to incorporate The Railway Brotherhood Casualty Insurance Company (and recommending that the title be changed to " An Act to incorporate The Railway Employees' Casualty Insurance Company ").- Mr. Mercier (St, Henri).
Bill No. 21, to incorporate The National-Liverpool Insurance Company.-Mr. Guerin.
Bill No. 23, respecting certain patent application of Stanley W. Hayes.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 35, to incorporate The Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church of Canada.-Mr. Luchkovich.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 32, to incorporate the Wapiti Insurance Company- Mr. Thorson-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On section 5-head office. .
Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is this the old Wawan-esa Mutual Insurance Company?


Mr. THORSON:: There were two bills introduced by me, one of which is the bill that is now before the committee, and -the other a bill to incorporate the Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company. The latter has been referred to the banking and commerce committee and has not been reported back to the house. This is a different corporation.


Milton Neil Campbell: There is no connection between the two companies?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: A number of the persons named are the same in both companies.


Milton Neil Campbell: What is the object of having two companies?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: I am sure I cannot answer that question.


Milton Neil Campbell: It seems rather remarkable that there are .two companies organized in the one village and by the same men.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 6 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 29, respecting a certain patent of Catelli Macaroni Products Corporation, Limited-iMr. Mercier (St. Henri)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Power to commissioner of patents for restoration of patent.
Mr. POULIOT:: I have studied this bill carefully, but I do not think the description of the patent is clear enough to satisfy hon. members. I would like to ask the sponsor of the bill if it has to do with spaghetti, macaroni or pork and beans.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: It is for the manufacture of an improved paste. The paste is manufactured with milk. The patent will enable them to make a better paste and put it on the market more cheaply.
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



ESQUIMALT AND NANAIMO RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
(Mr. C. H. DICKIE (Nanaimo) moved the second reading of Bill No. 62 respecting the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.
Charles Avery Dunning: Explain.


Mr. DICKIE:: Mr. Speaker, by this bill the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company seek an extension of time for building a couple of branch lines on Vancouver island. I know of no reason why the bill should not be allowed to proceed. As you know, Sir, these branch lines are built as the requirements of the timber trade demand their construction. In the past there was no particular occasion to build these lines, but today with the increased forestry business of British Columbia they are necessary. The Canadian National Railway system is nowhere near the district to be served by these two lines. In fact, in railway parlance, it may be said to be Canadian Pacific territory. No other railway interest would be prejudiced in any way, and I cannot understand why there would be any objection to granting the extension of time.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-AIberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on this bill. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) in moving the second reading says he does not know any reason why thp bill should not be passed. I presume his point of view is merely that of one acting for the company and wishing to get the bill through. The 78594-444
proposed branch lines are some hundred miles away from his district; in fact they are entirely in the western portion of my riding, and he will therefore perhaps pardon me if I take a few minutes to discuss the bill more from the angle of the people of the district affected than that of the company behind it.
I may say that personally I am entirely in favour of the building of these branch railways, and I am quite sure that I speak also for every man and woman in that portion of .the district affected. But, sir, when I say we are entirely in favour of the building of the proposed railways, and also entirely in favour of this bill, it is with this proviso, that we be satisfied that the passing of the bill and the building of the branch lines are one and the same thing, and not a means of tying up this country for another five, and possibly another ten, years. The original act was passed in 1919, so the promoters already have had ten years to carry out their plans.
Now, I see one or two points in this bill that I should like to mention. First, it contains no provision for the work to commence within two years of the passing of the bill: simply the promoters are given five yeai'3 within which to complete the work. That is a departure from the ordinary practice. I have before me Bill No. 41, introduced by the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner), and it covers a number of branch lines, some fourteen I think, to be built by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I may say that the bill now before us, while ostensibly in the name of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company, is really a Canadian Pacific Railway Company bill, as they own the subsidiary company. Bill No. 41 contains a provision that in respect of each branch line, construction must be commenced within twc years after the passing of the bill and be completed within five years. This provisior is not contained in Bill No. 62 now before us I should certainly like to have some explanation of the omission. I suggest it would give us a good deal more confidence in the genuineness of this application if the bill contained such a provision. The clause is embodied in other Canadian Pacific Railway bills, and at least its spirit is to be found in the Canadian National Railway bills, but their lines have to 'be completed within tjhree years.
The hon. member for Nanaimo has said that no other railway is likely to go into the territory to be served by these proposed branch lines, the inference being, then why have any hesitation about granting possibly a very lengthy renewal of this charter. But some-
692	COMMONS
Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway
times things move very quickly, and there has been such a rapid development in the west that we do not know what may happen in another ten years. We have seen many railways built by the Canadian National in '.he last decade that were not even dreamed of before that period. And it is possible that before another five years have elapsed we may see the Canadian National Railway knocking at our doors.
But there is another feature in this connection. I have in my hand the votes and proceedings of the British Columbia legislature for January 29, 1929, and I find there the member for the local district, Mr. Hanna, asking the government what their intentions are with regard to building a highway from Alberni to the west coast of Vancouver island at or near Tofino, which is practically the route covered by this bill. The government reply, as usual, that the project is under consideration; )but they also say that they have had a survey made. This I think indicates that the matter is genuinely under the consideration of the British Columbia government. Of course if undertaken the road would be built as a tourist and settlement road, and at a large cost. I think the estimate is something like four hundred thousand dollars, and undoubtedly before the road was finished it would probably cost a great deal more. In these days we are looking towards motor bus transportation, 'both passenger and freight, and it may be that the provincial government contemplates granting a charter to a bus company to assist the building of the highway. Governments are notoriously anxious and always willing to find excuses for not spending money, and it may be that the government would be glad to say, "We did contemplate genuinely enough building tlm highway but when we found that the Canadian Pacific Railway, through parliament at Ottawa, undertook to construct a railway on this same route it did not become us to bother about the matter". So that it might actually militate against the success of those who want the road, and we might not get either railway or highway inasmuch as both parties would be waiting, one on the other.
Of course, if the railway is going to go on, the whole ground is wiped from under my feet. I should be glad indeed if that were the case. But I recall what happened in the case of the settlers in the Peace River. They settled, fully expecting-indeed they were promised-that railway transportation would be provided; but it was not and the people were simply starved out. Pitiful tales could be told of what happened to those settlers,
[Mr. Neill.l
and I do not want the same thing to happen in connection with this interior road from Alberni to the. west coast. Settlers are not learned in the law and do not understand that a bill which states ostensibly that a road is going to be built does not necessarily guarantee the construction of that road. An hon. gentleman opposite had a similar bill before parliament six years ago. I brought up the same point, that the settlers had been waiting for the railway and were entitled to have it built, and someone observed rather callously, "It is up to the settlers to take care of themselves." But I submit that the settlers are not in a position to take care of themselves. They are told by the colonizing agent in the old country that a road will be built, that the charter has been granted; and they think that the charter means a guarantee of the building of the road. On the strength of this they go into these remote places where there are no transportation facilities, and they are obliged to carry their flour and other stores on their backs. Notwithstanding that they have been promised that a railway will be constructed, and in view of such promise have taken their wives and families into these distant places, nothing is done and they are starved out. I want to avoid that in connection with this railway and to make sure that nothing of the kind will happen here. I do not want settlers to go into this district believing that a railway is to be built if there is no reasonable guarantee of construction.
The second point I wish to discuss in connection with the bill is this: there is no provision for bonds; that is to say, there is nothing providing for the money for the construction of the road. Even the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, wealthy corporation as it is, will not tackle an expenditure of a couple of millions without having provision for bonding privileges. Let me explain the point as well as I can. I am not a lawyer, and it may seem presumptuous for me to raise such a point. But it is not so much a question of law as of fact and common sense, of which even lawyers have not a monopoly. Indeed, one of the most celebrated lawsuits in the old country had its origin in the fact that an able and eminent judge had drawn his own will and made a mess of it. I want to explain how it comes about that there are no bonding privileges. The original act was passed in 1919, being section 83 of the statutes of that date; and section 4 of that act provided for bonding privileges. I need not read it; it provides that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company may issue securities not exceeding $50,000 a mile. That act was

Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway
assented to on June 6, 1919. I particularly call attention to the date, June 6, because a good deal hinges upon it. That, I say, was the year 1919. Provision was made to begin construction within two years, completion in five years; the act provides that the privileges granted would lapse if the road were not built within five years after its passage. Now it is a well known point in law that an act is passed and goes into effect only when it is assented to; previously to that it is a bill and may be withdrawn or defeated. Five years from June 6, 1919, would be June 6, 1924. I have no doubt that the company intended to come to the house and obtain a renewal of the charter; and as a matter of fact it did. It came to parliament in 1924. I have the act before me. But they made what I regard as two slips in the drafting of it. First of all, they did not amend the old act, providing that the act should stand, and merely altering the date, which would be in accordance with the custom followed in amending such acts. They did not do that; they simply partially reenacted the measure. They said, "We are going to build the railway," and they re-stated in part the terms of the act. The second mistake was that they forgot to reenact the bonding clause. They put in a clause giving power to build the railway, but they did not reenact section 4 which deals with bonding privileges.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is this company owned and controlled by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?


Alan Webster Neill: It is owned and controlled
by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They would not need
bonding privileges to build a road like that.


Alan Webster Neill: I think they would.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why?


Alan Webster Neill: They had it in 1919.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They could build it with
their own funds.


Alan Webster Neill: But it is not in accordance
with the custom. At any rate, they themselves secured the bonding privilege in 1919. If the hon. gentleman says that they carry around a couple of millions loose in their pockets, and if they are satisfied to build it with cash funds, I suppose we have nothing to say. But the point I am making is this: I want to see this road built, and I do not want to have any flaw in the act. I have no doubt that what they intended in the act of 1924 was to revive the old act of 1919, which provided bonding privileges. But owing to
the passage of time and the extent to which members talked in those days they did not get the act of 1924 assented to until the 19th day of July of that year, six weeks after the old act had lapsed. And of course you cannot revive an act. You can have it re-enacted. Well, they did re-enact the act but, as I have explained, they failed to re-enact the bonding privilege clause, which consequently is no longer in existence.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should doubt it very much.


Alan Webster Neill: Possibly it is a point for
lawyers to argue, but I am anxious to see that no flaw shall creep into this bill. I do not wish, two or three or five years from now, to have the question asked why the railway has not been built and then be told that there was some slip in the bill and that no bonding privilege was provided. I merely throw out this suggestion, and no doubt the hon. member in charge of the bill will consider the point. I am not offering anything in the nature of destructive criticism.	_	_
Another suggestion I wish to submit is this. I see no reason whatever why this railway should not come in the ordinary course under the Railway Act, so far as section 161 is concerned. The Railway Act was intended to consolidate the legislation and provide one standard act, bringing all railway charters within its scope. I do not know why, I have never been told, and I cannot conceive why this company should be made an exception.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Is that section excepted in
the original act?


Alan Webster Neill: It is excepted, and it is
excepted in this act by a few words at the end of section 1, which provides: "If the said railway lines are not so completed", and so forth. It is held that the insertion of these words vitiates section 161 of the Railway Act. In fact it is so admitted, and a special act always overrides the original. There is no justification for it, and if this provision were left out then the railway would come under the operation of section 161, which provides for the bona fide commencement of the work. Section 121 of the Railway Act prescribes that commencement of construction shall mean the expenditure of 15 per cent of the total cost, or of the bonding privileges, or something to that effect.


Mr. HEAPS:: Has any work been started
on the railway up to the present time?


Alan Webster Neill: Eleven miles have been built under the charter of 1919, but nothing has been built of whait is now proposed by the bill.
.	COMMONS
Esquimall and Nanaimo Railway


Abraham Albert Heaps: But do I understand that
nothing has been done under the present act since 1924?


Alan Webster Neill: Nothing has been built of
what is now proposed, and I ask that these words be omitted, so that the Railway Act as it applies to other railways shall apply there. In that case we should have a guarantee of bona fide construction within two years and completion within five. If they once fulfil the commencement requirements there will be no danger of the road not being completed.
I propose to vote for the second reading of the bill, but I would suggest to the hon. member in charge of it that before the bill comes before the railway committee he get in touch with his principals and make the suggestions I have enumerated. He might suggest beginning the construction in two years; he might call their attention to that question of the bonding privileges which at least is doubtful and which might be easily remedied by inserting a clause in this bill, and also suggest that section 1 be amended.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. The hon. member who has been discussing this bill has referred in unparliamentary terms, I submit, to the hon. member sponsoring the bill; he has referred to the hon. member's "principals," the company which he represents. I submit that is not parliamentary language and should not be used in connection with any member of the house.


Hewitt Bostock: No one in this house is deemed to represent private interests. I did not catch the exact words used by the hon. gentleman, but if he did use that expression, " the principals" of the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill, he certainly went beyond the rules of the house.


Alan Webster Neill: If that is the only thing worry-mg the acting leader of the opposition I would cheerfully withdraw the word "principals." I had no idea anyone could take it amiss.


Hewitt Bostock: No one in this house is
deemed to represent private interests.


Alan Webster Neill: If I were sponsoring a divorce bill I would not suggest that I had a private interest, or any other kind of interest, in it. Then I would suggest that the hon. member for Nanaimo get in touch with the company whose bill we are discussing and which he introduced. I suggest that if the company whose bill we are discussing had their attention directed to the three things I have mentioned I believe the bill would be improved, because it would give a guarantee of a bona' 
fide desire to build this railway. Under those circumstances no one would be more delighted than I to see the bill passed.


Charles Herbert Dickie: The hon. gentleman opposing this bill has made quite a little speech.


Alan Webster Neill: Order. Is this the committee of the whole?


Charles Herbert Dickie: I am explaining myself. I
can assure the house that the hon. gentleman has made a statement with respect to myself-


Mr. RINFRET:: I rise to a point of order.


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. gentleman
dealing with a point of privilege or making a personal explanation?


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. member moved the second reading of the bill, and now he is replying.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Perhaps before the hon. member exercises his right of reply I might suggest that in the ordinary course of events this bill will be referred to the com-mitte on railways, canals and. telegraph lines, and the promoters of the bill will be present on that occasion and I presume can be questioned with regard to the matters raised by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill). I have no knowledge of the merits of the various matters which he raises, 'but in the ordinary course they can be dealt with on that occasion. I simply wished' to make this statement before my hon. friend closed the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: Does any other hon.
member wish to speak before the hon. gentleman closes the debate?
Mr. D'ARCY B. PLUNKETT (Victoria, B.C.): Mr. Speaker, since I come from a constituency which is adjacent to this district I wish to make a statement to the house in regard to this bill. The country through which this railway will be built is heavily timbered. Is it likely that a railway company will cut down the timber and lay steel unless it is assured that lumber and the timber will be taken out of this district? A railway is compelled to move slowly in this area. If this bill does not pass and the company is not given the opportunity to construct the line in question it will mean that a great many men will be out of work on Vancouver island, particularly in connection with the lumbering industry. I wish to register my protest against anything which will prevent the construction of that railway, because the result would be to interfere with the interests and the wellbeing of the working people of Vancouver island.

Natural Resources-Mr. Woodsworth


Charles Herbert Dickie: I have very little to say except that the hon. member for Comox-Al-berni (Mr. Neill) has misrepresented me and also misrepresented the railway in some particulars.


Mr. PARENT:: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman is closing the debate? He has already spoken once.


Charles Herbert Dickie: Yes, I am closing the debate. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni spoke of the Peace River country, but the country through which this railway will pass does not resemble the Peace River country in any way. It is heavily timbered country, and as the demand for logs and lumber becomes greater the line is extended. It is necessary for a railway to look ahead, in order that it may not be held up by charter-mongers who may come in and get a charter and prevent the further development of the line. I am sorry to say that much of the railroad construction on the timbered part of Vancouver island has proceeded too rapidly; they are denuding our lands of the forests much too quickly. This road is for timber purposes altogether, since there is very little inducement for settlers in the district in question. In reply to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni let me say that I was approached only a few days ago and asked if I would sponsor this bill. I said I would be delighted to do so.
I presume they should have asked him; I do not know why they did not, but I am the nearest member to that district with the exception of himself, and since I never have had a reputation of baiting corporations for the sake of political effect perhaps is why they approached me instead of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. V oodsworth:
That, in the opinion of this house, no disposition of the natural resources, under the control of the federal government, shall be effective until ratified by parliament.
And on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie, and the proposed amendment to the amendment of Mr. Stevens.
James Shaver Woodsworth: After studying the course
of my motion I find I am in somewhat of a
quandary to know whether I have been ignominiously defeated or whether, on the other hand, I have achieved a very signal victory.
A short time ago I thought the majority of the hon. members of the house were very definitely against the principle contained in my motion, bult there seemed to be some black magic connected with the subamendment of the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) for suddenly the atmosphere seems to have cleared and I find everyone in the house quite favourable to my motion as amended. The only difficulty is that as amended I hardly recognize it as mine.
As suggestions were made during the course of the debate that there was something rather sinister in my introducing this motion, I would like to read to the house two planks from the platform on which my colleague from North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) and myself were elected to this house. The first plank was as follows:
Regaining for the use of the people of this country the natural resources which have been so recklessly alienated by incompetent or venal administration.
The second plank follows very naturally from the first, and is as follows:
Public ownership and democratic operation Oif pulblic utilities; and as soon as possible of essential large scale industry.
Our little group has tried to stand consistently for these principles, and when another of the great natural resources was alienated last summer I felt that we had to do what we could to protest against it; hence my motion. As I said before, I gave notice of this motion to the clerk of the house some months ago and I had then of course no idea that a commission would be investigating the situation in Manitoba at the time my motion would be introduced in the house. Notwithstanding what the members of the government have said, I still regard my motion as being quite a sensible one. I admit it has been quite easy to ridicule it by enumerating the details which would be involved in carrying it out. I tried to anticipate objections of that kind by showing that we could handle all these small transactions as we handle so many of the details in the estimates-the minister could lay on the table schedules of the transactions which had taken place in his department during the preceding year. I was not concerned in these small matters, but I believed that in view of the great value of the natural resources of this country the time had come when the water-powers, the lands and the mines should not be in the gift of the administration; their disposal should be sub-
696	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Woodsivorth
jeot to ratification by this house. I believed that when I introduced the resolution, and I believe it still. As I said, I accepted the -amendment on the ground that half a loaf is better -than no bread a-t all; if I could not get the -land I was willing to take the water, and I suppose if I cannot get the waiter I will have to take the air. The amendment seemed to offer half a loaf, but I am afraid the subamendment only gives a few crumbs.
There are many things I do not like about the subamendment. In the first place, it excludes important water-powers su-ch as the Bea-uharnois or other water-powers outside the present provincial boundaries. I prefer the amendment in that it included all water-powers, because I am one of those who see no reason why a development, even though situated entirely in one province, -may not be regarded as being for the general advantage of Canada. When the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) was speaking the other day he stated that there was mo control by the Dominion government over the upper waters of the Winnipeg river, and I think his statement was corroborated -by the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart). I should like to ask the minister (Mr. Dunning) when the legislation declaring those upper waters to be for the general advantage of Canada was repealed. I remember a bill to that effect being introduced in 1922, but it was rejected by the senate; it was -introduced in 1923, passed this house and was again rejected by -the senate. I have no recollection of such legislation being introduced at a later time, but possibly the minister could give me some information in this regard.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member has not stated correctly what I said yesterday. I did not say that the Dominion government controlled the waters of the Winnipeg river east of the borders of Manitoba; I said that the water-powers on the Winnipeg river within the province of Ontario could- be alienated or disposed of by the government of Ontario, and I had the authority of the Minister of the Interior for making that statement. I might have taken any other interprovincial river as an illustration, but it happened that this particular river had ibeeu under discussion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I understood the minister's argument to be that the older provinces had control over their own streams.


Charles Avery Dunning: The right to dispose of the water-powers on those streams.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the case of the upper reaches of the Winnipeg river which crosses the interprovincial boundary, as I 
recollect, legislation was placed on the statute books which declared those waters, and the developments on those waters to be for the general advantage of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: When was that passed?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I cannot give the year, but an attempt was made to repeal it in 1922 and again in 1923.


Charles A. Stewart: It was passed in 1921 and was repealed last year. We never took advantage of that legislation at any time, and we so stated when we asked for this bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As it was doubtful legislation perhaps that was the best procedure to take.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is a precedent involved, whether advantage was taken of the legislation or not. It was on the statute books of this country and in the case of interprovincial waters it was declared that their development should be for the general advantage of Canada. I am not quite sure that similar action could not be taken with regard to other developments which are obviously of more than local importance, and I was sorry that the subamendment should exclude great developments outside of the prairie provinces. Further than that, it did not seem -to me in reading the resolution first that it was very clear whether the word "province" meant the legislature itself or the government. I am somewhat reassured when I learn that in the case of the railway belt legislation of British Columbia, referred to in the subamendment, it is necessary that there should be definite water acts, and if a similar course were followed in the prairie provinces it would be essential that the various provincial legislatures should pass similar water acts. The only trouble is that even then it might still be possible for the provinces to act under order in council, and that is the very thing that some of us are objecting to. We think water-powers held by the federal government or by the governments of the prairie provinces ought to be disposed of only after the matter has been brought before parliament. So in this I see a weakness in the subamendment.


Charles A. Stewart: May I point out to my hon. friend that the matter would undoubtedly arise when the legislation was being put through the legislature?
Mr.WOODSWORTH: It seems to me that the subamendment gives us something more than we have had in the past. In -the first place I think it extends to Saskatchewan and Alberta the concessions made to Manitoba,

Natural Resources-Mr. Woodsworth
and these two provinces will come under the same sort of arrangement that now prevails with regard to Manitoba. But as regards Manitoba I cannot see that we shall be in a very different position from what we are in to-day. Pending the formal transfer of the natural resources it would still be quite possible for Manitoba to give away under order in council such water-powers as that of the Seven Sisters.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to suggest to him that Manitoba would have to pass legislation before they could administer by order in council? In other words, it is in the hands of the legislature to determine what form their administration shall take.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes,and to that extent I think the adoption of the subamendment would be a distinct advantage and an advance on the present practice, because no doubt when this legislation will be considered, general principles will be discussed and, I fancy, some policy definitely reached.
What, however, disturbs me most is the Prime Minister's interpretation of this subamendment. He suggests that in the meantime matters would go along just about as they are to-day, and until the provincial legislatures meet we might still have this government by order in council giving away other natural resources. As an hon. member suggests, this is perhaps not likely, but it is that very procedure that some of us have so strenuously objected to in connection with the Seven Sisters. All we asked as private members was that the government should refuse to take action until the provincial legislature of Manitoba met. So in this regard it does not seem to me that the subamendment as interpreted by the Prime Minister will altogether remove the objections that some of us have made as to the present method of administering our water-powers.


Charles A. Stewart: Both the legislatures of Alberta and Manitoba are still in session and can pass the legislation as we can do this session.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If those legislatures would do that, undoubtedly it would meet the objections which I have just now voiced. I am somewhat consoled with regard to the whole matter in that after this lengthy debate, after the opinions which have been expressed on all sides of the house and in the newspapers, I really do not think either the federal government or the governments of the three prairie provinces would dare to undertake the kind of thing that was done in connection with the Seven Sisters. To that extent possibly we have made a very considerable advance.
I do not want to go into the general subject that was discussed just before the house rose by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church), that is, the advantages of public ownership. I would, however, like to say that the advantage of public ownership is what lies behind in my mind1 all the time in urging parliamentary control. I believe in public ownership and I believe parliamentary control over these resources is at least a safeguard, because we can discuss things in the open, and public sentiment is growing so rapidly with regard to the necessity of public ownership that I think the government would be taking big risks if it defied parliament or the legislative assemblies of the country. After the speech recently delivered by the Premier of Ontario with regard to the dangers to public ownership in the propaganda which was being carried on across this country, I think we can fairly well rest assured that at least none of the western governments or this government would dare to take any course inimical to the principle of public ownership.
I recall a statement made years ago by Robert M. LaFollette in Madison Square Garden, New York, when he compared public and private ownership. He referred to the lighting of the Niagara bridge, half of that bridge being under the jurisdiction of the Dominion authorities and other half being under the jurisdiction of the United States authorities. On the Canadian side we had the Ontario hydro; on the American side the private companies. On the American side the charge for lighting for a certain period was $43 while on the Canadian side it was $8.43. That is, it was five times as much on the American half of the bridge as it was on the Canadian half. The same waters flow underneath the bridge and there are the same possibilities of developing hydro, yet under a public ownership system the cost was only one-fifth of what it was under the privately owned system.
I would refer once more to a warning given out from the United States. I take it that along many of these lines what the United States is to-day, Canada is apt to be tomorrow and therefore we ought to be very careful to avoid some of the dangers into which the United States have come. Governor Pinohot in his message of transmittal, introducing the report of the Grant Power Survey Board of 1925, said:
As Pennsylvania and the nation deal with electric power, so shall we and our descendants
698	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Woodsworth
be free men, masters of our own destinies and our own souls, or we shall be the helpless servants of the most widespread, far-reaching and penetrating monopoly ever known. Either we must control electric power, or its masters and owners will control us.	.
That which is so profoundly true in the United States is equally true in Canada. They have largely lost, at least for a good many years, the opportunities of controlling their great water-powers. We still have the opportunities within our reach, and I hope we shall not fail to take advantage of the opportunities that are still ours. I suppose, since the government accepts the subamendment, it will undoubtedly pass; it will hardly be necessary for any of us to record our votes. I do not see how we could very well vote against it, but it contains only a part of what I had hoped we might be able to secure from the house. I should like to see the principle established with regard, not merely to the water-powers of the three prairie provinces but to all the water-powers in Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: What has this parliament to do with the water-powers in the other provinces of Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is a very large order.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is a very simple question.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is not so simple as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) may think. I quite frankly admit that in a general way the natural resources belong undoubtedly to the provinces, but I would point out this, that when the British North America Act was drawn up were thinking in terms of the natural resources which were then developed, and we had no idea of some of these new resources which would be developed in the future. The fathers of confederation were thinking in terms of line fences, of surveys, of corner-posts. In the meantime, we have developed our rivers. They had the rivers then, and as soon as they eame to talk about those which passed provincial boundaries, there was the recognition even then of the larger concerns involved. As soon as we crossed the provincial boundaries we were compelled to take into consideration the larger considerations. I submit that when it comes to water-powers, we touch interests that are not merely local in their character.


Charles Avery Dunning: The fathers of confederation showed considerable foresight in mentioning water-powers specifically in the British North America Act.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There may have
been some mention of them; I have not the act here, and I cannot recall the words. But I think even the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) -ill admit that the water-powers, and. all that the water-powers meant sixty years ago, was a very different proposition from what water-powers mean at the present time.


Charles Avery Dunning: I only intended to convey that, in relation to the public affairs of that day, the water-powers were important enough in the minds of those dealing with them to justify a specific reference to them in the British North America Act, and, indeed, a specific conveyance to the Dominion of the canals and water-powers formerly owned by the provinces which were uniting. So they must have been considered in relation to Canada as a whole.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite admit that even at that time there were certain powers. Under the British North America Act all the matters of local importance were to be left in the hands of the provinces. But I do not think I misinterpret the spirit of the British North America Act when I say that there was also present the thought of matters that were of general interest to the country at large. But I am not interpreting the British North America Act to-night. I had no idea of going into that question except to suggest that there were certain powers which even under the British North America Act were left to the Dominion of Canada, and in view of the advances which have been made in water-power development I think we may very well consider whether the water-powers on the St. Lawrence are entirely a provincial matter. I do not think that this can be taken for granted as the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George seems to consider is the case. I think there is a wider interpretation possible even there.
But there are other powers located outside the organized provinces, and it was all this that I had in view when I said that I had hoped that the general principle would be taken into consideration to-night, and that we would concede that we ought not to deal with matters of this kind without reference to parliament itself. Of course, we cannot tie each provincial legislature; I am not suggesting that, but I would hope, so far as the western provinces are concerned, that they will adopt the principle which we have urged, namely parliamentary control of the disposal of our natural resources.

Natural Resources-Mr. Bourassa


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: My
hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in opening his remarks this evening said that he felt himself to be in a quandary. I ought to be in a deeper quandary, for the reason that I have followed very little of this debate. Perhaps, for the same reason, I shall be in a position to give, if not a more intelligent vote, at, least one less perturbed by many of the considerations and side issues brought up during this debate. For example, I do not propose, sir, to have anything to do with the Seven Sisters. I still feel too young to come so close to ladies of that character, especially after they have been handled in such a manner by politicians of all parties.
With regard to the three motions before us, it seems to me that my good friend from Winnipeg North Centre has not quite realized the effect of the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens); and the government having apparently decided to accept that proposition, I do not think that they, either, have quite realized its bearing. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has suggested that this proposition should be adopted unanimously. Once more, I feel myself a little more Irish than the Irish: I am both "agin" the government and "agin" the opposition in this matter.
If I understand aright the proposition of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it is a very simple one, a broad one, and one open to fair discussion. He lays down as a general principle of legislation that none of the natural resources, no part of the domain of the crown as vested in the right of the Dominion, should be disposed of until such disposition is ratified by parliament. That suggests the great and far-reaching principle of the paramount authority of parliament over government. If the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is accepted, we at once divest ourselves of that authority which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to strengthen. Besides, we divest this government, and this government consents to be divested, of the powers of administration that havp heretofore been vested in them by parliament and by the constitution of Canada. So that, as a matter of fact, the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is the very negation in principle and in practice of the motion proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Does not the subamendment merely propose to vest the power in the
provincial legislatures, which have real jurisdiction over their own rights?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend will
allow me, I am not preparing to enter into a legal argument with a lawyer of his ability.
I am speaking simply as a parliamentarian, with a certain degree of experience, and some knowledge of the principles of parliamentary government. I am not discussing whether the motion or the amendment is right or wrong. I am simply saying that I cannot see how anyone who is in favour of the motion presented by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be in favour of the motion offered as a substitute by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, because it seems to me that one is the complete negation in principle and in practice of the other. That is my first point.
My second point is that the subamendment is also very different from the amendment proposed by the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie). I leave it to the hon. gentleman and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre to compose their differences of opinion in that respect.
With regard to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, as he knows, much as I have of personal regard for him, as a parliamentarian I do not quite trust him. This is not the first time that he has succeeded-I compliment him for his ability-in getting this government to renounce its policy in favour of one offered to it by himself. So far as that is concerned he deserves much credit; but I do not think the so-called Liberal government deserves much credit for accepting an amendment offered to it by the hon.* member for Vancouver Centre, not because it comes from the hon. member, but because of the manner in -which it is presented, and also of what it leads to. I think it is a very weak attitude on the part of the government..
Let us go further. What will be the effect in practice not only as regards the three western provinces, but as regards the whole Dominion of Canada if this motion is accepted?
I leave the legal lights of this chamber to decide whether or not the government has the right to divest itself of these or any powers, held and exercised heretofore under the constitution, and to hand them over to provincial governments. I have been told time and again by the legal officers of the crown, and by eminent barristers as well, that neither the federal government can invest the provincial governments nor can the provincial governments invest the federal government
700	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Bourassa
with any of their respective powers. I simply cite their authority for that statement; I express no opinion upon it.
Now, by this amendment it is proposed to put the three provinces, Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, in the same position in which the government of British Columbia has been put by a certain piece of legislation which, I confess, I read for the first time ten minutes ago. But remembering the origin of this legislation, I am struck first with one basic difference as to the situation in British Columbia and the situation in the prairie provinces. British Columbia, as we all know, came into confederation as a fully-fledged province, just as the maritime provinces and United Canada had come in. The domain of the crown, including water-powers and everything else, was vested in the crown in right of the province of British Columbia; but by subsequent legislation the province consented to hand over to the federal government a certain piece of land in return for the disbursements made by the federal government under the authority of the federal parliament for the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway. So, when this act of 1912 was passed, the federal parliament was simply handing back to British Columbia a part of the rights which that province had given to the Dominion in 1884. This is entirely different from what we are asked to do now, that is, to prejudice, so to speak, the settlement of that great problem of the handing over to those three provinces the natural resources contained within their territory. To those resources the provinces may have a moral title; but as a matter of fact they never held them under any statute or under the constitution of Canada. So you see, Mr. Speaker, there is already apparent a very deep difference, both in principle, in law and in practice, as between the situation created in British Columbia by the act of 1912 and the situation which we propose to create by a stroke of the pen at the suggestion of the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) to be wielded by his followers, the members of the Liberal government!
Now there is another point which my bon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre made a moment ago. I think it is a very strong point, and we should ponder it a little before we legislate unanimously upon this motion. The point is this. We are called upon to decide that no further disposition-I interject this: of any nature, for any purpose whatever, for any public right or interest whatever- shall be made by the federal authorities. The parliament of Canada, invested by the people

with the responsibility of safeguarding the public interest, will now decide, by a stroke of the pen, as to the disposal, for any purpose whatever, of an asset that, as the Prime Minister said the other day, is simply the beginning of a source of industrial and economic strength and prosperity which no man in this house or outside can yet calculate. In order to arrange matters, and to put an end to an annoying debate, we are going to decide to renounce for all time to come, and hand over to the three prairie provinces -with whom this government has not been able to come to terms on the very principle upon which this is based-we are going to dispose, I say, on the spur of the moment, of what may become in the future one of the most valuable assets for the people of those provinces as well as for the people of Canada at large.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question there? Why would he condemn the people who make up the western provinces to a different handling of their water-power resources from what he now argues on behalf of the province of Quebec?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Not at all. Perhaps I did not make myself clear to my hon. friend. I made no mention of Ontario or Quebec.


Edward Joseph Garland: I just cited Quebec.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If my hon. friend will be as patient wdth me as I am with him when he speaks,-although there is always this difference: he is interesting, I am not-I will explain what I mean. The point I made, first, was that before this parliament settles that big problem-and perhaps this may be a satisfactory answer to my friend-the principle upon which the western provinces are to receive their natural resources should be agreed upon. Ever since I have been in public life I have held the view, and I have expressed it in Quebec and elsewhere, that the people of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan should be put on the same footing as the people of the other provinces with regard to natural resources or any other question having to do with national or local affairs. I do not want Canada to have "superior" and "inferior" provinces; I want them all to be equal. But has this government the right, under the direction of one member of this house, to dispose of one factor of this problem before the whole problem has been dealt with? From the broad point of view, have they the right to divest themselves of one of their powers of administra-

Natural Resources-Mr. Bourassa
tion, of which they are not the masters, but which has been confided to them by the people of Canada at large? On the other hand, as shrewd diplomats-and in a matter of this nature it is a question of diplomacy- have they the right to hand over to the party with whom they are negotiating, one of their most valuable assets? Have you ever heard in the world of diplomacy of one government giving away to the other party a part of what it has in its hands, prejudicing thereby a final 'settlement?
Now, with regard to the rest of Canada,- to my friend from Bow River I repeat, if necessary, that the people of the western provinces should be put on the same footing as the people of the eastern provinces; but I do not agree that in order to please the people of the three prairie provinces we should prejudice either the rights or the situation of the eastern provinces. This is the point to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has directed attention, and I want to emphasize it. Of course, as he said, the water-powers and all that they are capable of giving to the people of Canada could have been nothing in the imagination of the fathers of confederation, or, to speak of actual facts, those water-powers are comparatively nothing to-day, compared with what they may be twenty-five or fifty years hence. The enormous problem of the control of these resources, for navigation purposes, for industrial purposes, for the preservation of forests by the maintenance of large areas of flooded lands, especially in that vast country extending from Labrador to lake Timiskaming-this whole problem is bound up with this question of water rights and water-powers.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend seems to be arguing as though these resources were being turned over to the provinces. Only the administration of them is affected.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will make myself clear. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that this is too considerable a question to be settled solely in reference to some provision contained in some small corner of the British North America Act passed in 1867 by men of whom perhaps not one knew what water-power was, and who certainly could not foresee what water-powers would be in our day; indeed, we ourselves cannot conceive their possibilities fifty years hence. I say, therefore, whether the question is one of disposal or of administration, that we have no right to prejudice any factor of this great problem. We have no right to lay
down the principle that water-powers are any more the property of the provinces than of the Dominion. A classification will have to be made, first, from a technical standpoint and carefully studied, just as the problem of water-powers was studied and solved in Switzerland, for example, to speak of one country I know. There water-powers have been classified, first, from a purely technical point of view, then from the viewpoint of industrial possibilities, and finally handed over, some to the national government, some to the various cantons, and others to the municipalities for local needs. That policy I advocated in the legislature of Quebec twenty years ago, and while it does not make me any younger to refer to the fact, at the same time I feel now, as I felt then, that we have no right to make a gift of these powers either to Sir Herbert Holt or to the International company, as the so-called Liberal but really Tory government of Quebec is doing from week to week and from month to month. We have no right either, we the trustees of the Canadian people, to hand over all that possible wealth to the provinces, either for disposal or even simply for administration. If we vote in favour of the subamendment we commit ourselves in general, unequivocal and unreserved terms to the admission that all water-powers are of provincial interest alone. Whether we commit ourselves by the use of the word "disposal" or the word "administration", I for one, not being a lawyer, refuse to plunge headlong into this matter; I refuse to be crippled within the four comers-if one can speak in terms of dimension in this regard-of one or two words in a particular text. I always endeavour to find out the spirit and the consequence of a principle of legislation or of any determination of this house, and I have tried to read this text with that object in view. If I am right in my interpretation, it means this, that ten or twenty years hence, if this proposal is incorporated in the provincial statutes of the three provinces, if it forms a part of the final agreement with those provinces in relation to their natural resources, we shall have Ontario and Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia knocking at our door, asking us to renounce all rights and titles we may now have over any water-powers for the general interests of the people of Canada, in order to give these provincial governments the opportunity of handling those resources in the interests of their own people, who after all are but fractions of the nation as a whole, but possibly also to hand them over to a handful of sharks, as has been done in the province of Quebec for the last
702	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Bourassa
twenty years. I am not prepared to associate my name with any such proposal, the consequences of which I foresee.
For the last twenty years I have fought in the province of Quebec against both Liberals and Tories because of the manner in which they have dealt with the public domain of that province. Some of us succeeded after many years in getting the government of that province to do something to preserve the forests of the country; but so far as water-powers are concerned, there has been an orgy of favoritism, which is disquieting not only to thinking people, but to all enlightened men associated with industry and water-power development. I have myself heard this from one of the directors of a large company: "We don't know whither we are going, but we are obliged to take more than we can handle, because if we do not, the government will give it to the other concern." For that reason one large concern grabs all it can of forest reserves and water-powers, the object being to prevent the rival interest from obtaining these resources. That is a pretty clear illustration of what may ensue if we once lay down the principle and, for the sake of a bonne entente between warring parties in this house, thus compromise the future. It may be said that any act we pass now may be repealed. Well, I hope my good friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) will forgive me if I venture to suggest that I have read somewhat more extensively in history than he has, for the simple reason that I have had more leisure. And my reading, not only of Canadian history but of the history of many nations, convinces me that once a government divests itself of a given power it becomes impossible, especially in a so-called democratic electoral country, and more particularly in a confederation, for the central authority to resume control once it has lost it, or to take back anything it has given up. Why? Because the sense of public opinion, if you like, or the opposition of so-called vested interests, or, if you will, the feeling, laudable in itself, of respect for provincial rights, will render it impossible. Let my good friends of the government rest assured of this: If they support this proposal before us, they will never regain what they give up; they will be forced to disgorge everything that belongs to the people of Canada, of whom they are the mandatories and servants. And, what is more, they will be forced to do for the other provinces what they are doing in this connection. That is my deep and serious reason for not accepting the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens).

With regard to the motion itself, I may say to my good friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that although I am generally pleased to vote with him I cannot agree with his resolution. It may be good in principle, but a single thought is sufficient to demonstrate that in practice it would handicap the functioning of government. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean), in a most practical manner, has demonstrated that if this principle of legislation had been adopted twenty years ago there would probably be no population in the western provinces to-day. I have known the western provinces for a longer time than many of those who represent them to-day. I travelled through that country thirty or more years ago, and then as now the people were grumbling against the handicapping of the federal administration; they were grumbling against the Canadian Pacific Railway and its servant, the parliament of Canada; grumbling at the Department of tihe Interior, the Department of Immigration, the Department of Indian Affairs. And it always came back to this objection: "Those men in Ottawa are too far away to know our problems." That is one of the reasons why I was converted to the idea of handing over the administration of the whole of these lands of the west, long before my good friend from Bow River crossed the ocean to become the excellent and distinguished Canadian he now is.
But precisely because I want the people of the west to deal with what is their own, or what will be their own after this question is settled, not piecemeal but according to principle and practice, I cannot accept the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre either in principle or in practice. It is true that governments in this country as in England, the United States, France and elsewhere, have freed themselves of their moral responsibility to parliament; it is true that governments in this country under all regimes have done things behind the back of parliament which they should not have done. I think a couple of years ago I quoted the opinion once expressed by Lecky as to the abnormal authority now monopolized by the cabinet under the British system of government. So, from that point of view, I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre; but when it comes to a partition as between broad principles of legislation and matters of management, I must confess that I believe, and always have believed, that democracy and parliamentary government is t failure. Keep control over the principle of new law; keep control over the men who govern the country and punish them if they

Natural Resources-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
do wrong; but give them ample opportunity to administer; because if you force them to come before parliament with every small act of administration; if you force the Minister of the Interior to report to parliament the sale of every section or quarter-section of land in the we^t or of every bit of forest, while perhaps you may spare the country a few misdeeds-although I am not quite sure that parliament as a whole is much superior to the government as a whole, either in point of morality or in point of competency-you will hamper them to a very large degree.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will the hon. member tell us how to get back the Seven Sisters?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No. As far as management is concerned I am prepared to trust this government; I would trust hon. gentlemen opposite the moment the people of Canada thought fit, rightly or wrongly, to trust them, and as long as they were the government. So long as these gentlemen are the government I am prepared to trust them broadly in matters of administration. I do not think they should come here, lose their time and make us lose our time, in rendering account foT every action taken by every department; but I would hold them hard and fast to the principles of our constitution and to the sound principles of government as they exist in every country. I would see that in connection with every bit of legislation brought down they do their duty by the people of Canada, and then trust them with small matters or even large matters of administration.
For all these reasons, sir, I find myself to be in opposition to the opposition; I find myself to be in opposition to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and in opposition to the government. No, I am mistaken, because if I understand correctly the situation, in this instance the government is the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and the members and followers of the government are simply voters behind him.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: Mr. Speaker, I shall require but a very short time for the few observations I have to make and which I am privileged to make because of the subamendment. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), in opening his remarks, said he did not want to have anything to do with the Seven Sisters.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I will leave them to you; they are in need of a good doctor.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: I thought, Mr. Speaker, I was to have the floor after
the hon. member for Labelle had finished, but evidently the hon. member is not through until he is outside the door. I was about to remark that I was sure those ladies, the Seven Sisters, would very deeply appreciate the reticence of the hon. member for Labelle in leaving them severely alone, and probably if they could be vocal would express their deep gratitude at their escape.
The hon. member for Labelle has paid a high compliment to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens); in the estimation of the hon. gentleman the government is at present on this side of the house in the person of my genial friend from Vancouver Centre.
In the course of the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon I noticed two things in particular: First he spoke about getting some person on this side out of a dilemma, and he immediately followed that remark by the statement that it was his intention and the intention of the government to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Such tenderness of heart and such solicitude on the part of the right hon. gentleman for those who sit on this side of the house is extremely rare. There seemed to be a little dispute between the two sides of the house as to who was in a dilemma ; on this side certain persons evidently wanted to get the government out of a hole, while the government was equally eager to get those on this side of the house out of a hole. I do not know where it is going to end, but I predict that if this sort of thing continues very long this session will be over long before Easter. I do think, however, from my knowledge of politics, that this throwing of bouquets and this kindness of heart manifested on each side spells danger for the Dominion of Canada.
The hon. member who has just vacated his seat and run out (Mr. Bourassa) said that the province of British Columbia entered into union as a full-fledged province, and in that respect was very different from the prairie provinces. Well, at least that is an admission on his part that the prairie provinces are not full-fledged, or in other words that they are not provinces at all up to the present. I was surprised, and I may say somewhat pleased, to hear .the hon. member for Labelle state that he wanted to see the prairie provinces given equality of status with the other provinces of the Dominion. I did not gather that that was his attitude toward the prairie provinces in 1926, from what he said on January 29 of that year; I came to a very different
704	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
conclusion, then, and I believe the people of Canada came to a different conclusion at that time as to his attitude towards the prairie provinces.
When I rose, Mr. Speaker, I said I did not intend to take up very many minutes of the time of the house, but I should like to refer to some remarks made during the course of this debate by that eminent jurist, that man who some day probably will be Chief Justice of Canada or occupy some other high position on the bench. I refer to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston).


Mr. POWER:: More bouquets.


Alexander McKay Edwards: Well, hon.
gentlemen opposite can contemplate the bouquet as it is now and- then look at it a little later. During the course of his remarks the other day the Minister of National Defence said that he could not, either as a member of the house or as a professional man, agree with the legal opinion expressed by myself. I was not aware that I had expressed any legal opinion. I did quote extensively from those who, I thought, were well qualified to express legal opinions, and if the Minister of National Defence had any confidence in his attainments as a lawyer he would have replied to the arguments I presented rather than directed his remarks to myself personally. I can assure him that he is entirely wrong in saying that I put myself up as the chief justice of the court of constitutional principles. I would not presume to do that because I have not the legal knowledge which would fit me for that position. Even though I had the legal knowledge I would not put myself in the field against the possible attainment of his ambitions for a position which, if he ever gets it, I hope he will fill better than the one he is in now. I desire to direct the attention of the Minister of National Defence to some words he used the other day, and which I was very much surprised to read in Hansard. He said:
I do not think the western provinces will associate themselves with the contention he made,-
-referring to myself.
-which was to this effect: It is true that when we came into eonfedration we got a certain payment in lieu of lands, but we now find that you had no right constitutionally and technically to withhold our lands; therefore we suggest that we should have the money in lieu of lands and the lands too.
Those are the sentiments he credits to me as having expressed in the course of my remarks. He then continued:

That was the argument of the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington, and I only desire to go on record as stating that I cannot agree with any such contention.
Every hon. member who was present when I introduced my resolution, to which every hon. member agreed including the Minister of National Defence, knows that I never made use of any such words, nor did I make use of any words which by the wildest stretch of imagination could be twisted into the construction placed upon them by the minister. I want to say to the minister that as a minister of the crown it should be beneath his dignity to resort to methods of that kind. The minister has shown a disposition at various times in his political career to be anything but fair and to be absolutely unjust when it comes to dealing with matters in a political way. Apparently it is utterly impossible for the Minister of National Defence to divest himself of his political coat and his extreme partisanship in discussing any question in the house in which he is interested. The minister cannot find in my remarks the sentiments which he placed in my mouth, nor will he find them in the remarks I made in introducing my resolution, and my reason in speaking now is to draw that fact to his attention.


Hewitt Bostock: With the permission of the house I will read the motion as it would read when amended by the amendment and the amendment to the amendment:
That, in the opinion of this house, no further disposition of the water-powers, under the control of the federal government in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta shall be made under the Dominion Water Powers Act but the said water-powers shall be administered by the respective provinces under powers to be granted by this parliament similar to the powers granted to the province of British Columbia to administer the water-powers in the railway belt as set forth in the Railway Belt Water Act of 1912, and being chapter 211 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.
The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Shall the motion carry? Carried.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Stevens) agreed to.


Hewitt Bostock: Now the question is, shall the amendment as amended by the subamendment be carried?


Mr. BIRD:: Before the amendment to the amendment is carried, as seconder to the original motion I should like to make a few remarks.

Natural Resources-Mr. Bird


Hewitt Bostock: Is the hon. member speaking on the amendment or on the main motion?


Thomas William Bird: I am speaking to the amendment as amended.


Hewitt Bostock: The amendment to the amendment is carried.


Thomas William Bird: It is immaterial whether I speak to the motion as amended or-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: The subamendment
amending the motion as amended is carried; the question now is, shall the amendment as amended be carried? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bird) has already spoken on the amendment.


Thomas William Bird: No, Your Honour.


Hewitt Bostock: Very well.


Thomas William Bird: Having taken part in the debate as the seconder of the original motion I think I have the right at this stage to make a few comments upon the question which is now before the house. The debate during the last few days has made it abundantly apparent that it is almost impossible to have a question discussed before the house on its merits. The question as presented to the house by the mover of the original motion was very clear, very specific, but no sooner was the motion before the house than the clouds of political animosity and contention began to descend and before the house knew where it was the original motion had been lost sight if. The principle as set forth in the original motion was clean-cut; there was no equivocation of any kind. In my former speech I adhered strictly to the motion before the house, and I endeavoured to impress the house with the first-rate importance of the principle involved, namely, that the wealth of the people as represented in our natural resources could not rightly be disposed of by governor in council without the ratification of parliament.
The debate having gone so far I am more convinced than ever of the value of that proposition. It seems to me when any matter that relates to the interest of the people is advanced on the floor of the house, there is straightway introduced the question of provincial rights, and an abstract discussion ensues which obscures the plain rights of the people to what is theirs. I am not concerned about these abstract rights with regard to which certain members of the house become excited. I do not see how the settlement of 78594-45
this natural resources question is going to put any bread into the mouths of the common people in my constituency. I can see at this stage of the debate that the question of provincial rights has been raised over and over again in order to obscure what I call popular rights. I am not going to be a party to proclaiming the sacredness of provincial rights to the detriment of what I consider to be the only valuable right of the people, that is, their right to the possession of their natural resources or to a say in their disposal. I have heard all I want to hear about provincial rights. There is no nourishment in that dry bone for a single Manitoba farmer or workingman. There may be in it an occasion for mental gymnastics on the part of constitutional lawyers in the house and elsewhere, but when the question has been discussed as many times as it has been in the house, the people of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are going to be exactly where they were before, with the Seven Sisters gone, and all the rest of our natural resources will go in the same direction while the representatives of the people are indulging in high-brow discussions in regard to what they call provincial rights. I was not surprised that the debate should take that course, for one has not been in the house a few years without finding that whenever an attempt is made to benefit the people on the lower levels, somebody jumps in, intervenes, with this question of provincial rights, and anything proposed in the house scarcely ever gets to the people except in a maimed and imperfect fashion. I could mention old age pensions, unemployment insurance and many other things which you cannot bring on the floor of the house without somebody intervening with the old gag about provincial rights. It is time that we were finished with this discussion of abstract rights which have no relation whatever to the welfare of the people. What I want to know is how we are going to get the Seven Sisters falls back into the possession of the people of Manitoba. If we cannot do that, I want to know how we are going to prevent the repetition of that sort of thing in our province. I do not want to hear about provincial rights; I want to hear about the rights of the men and women in Manitoba.
I was not surprised that this provincial rights debate should arise in certain quarters of the house, but I was surprised to find it come from the lips of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Glen). I was surprised that at- a point in the debate when there was an opportunity of carrying a motion that

Natural Resources-Mr. Bird
would have some teeth in it, a motion that would have determined that no more natural resources would be alienated from the people by this house or any house without first the legislature or parliament pronouncing upon it; my hon, friend should come to the rescue saying: "Abstract rights, provincial rights, this sacred thing that 'has been handed down to us from confederation; that is all I am concerned about. I am not concerned any more about the Seven Sisters; I am not concerned about the actual possession by the people of their own property; I am concerned about this abstract thing, this matter of provincial rights, and therefore I cannot support the motion." I wonder why it is at that juncture my hon. friend should lay aside his plea, because he was just as zealous as any of us a year ago. He and his friends then joined with us in a plea to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) that the Seven Sisters should mot be relinquished until the matter had been passed upon by the legislature of Manitoba. That is how I like to hear my hon. friend speak and act, because then he is dealing with realities. But during the debate it became apparent, for what reason I do not know, that the government could not accept the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mir. Woodisworth). The government has since accepted a motion from the opposition benches. My hon. friend from Marquette felt that he had to support the government at that juncture against the plain, clear-^cut statement of principle as embodied in the motion of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre. It is a great pity when the necessities of any group of men in the house compel them to vote against, to reject a principle that they surely are pledged to, that their circumstances demand that they should support.


James Allison Glen: May I ask the hon. member a question? Did the hon. gentleman himself who introduced the resolution not say that its terms were too wide and that this complaint would be made on the floor of the house?


Thomas William Bird: Yes, but that did not satisfy my hon. friend. When the terms of the resolution were narrowed down, were focussed to a point where one would have thought any member from Manitoba could have supported it, my hon. friend was astute enough to extricate himself from that position also. When the amendment was moved narrowing down the scope of my hon. friend's motion to water-powers, my hon. friend the leader of the Liberal-Progressives was still not satisfied, and we on this side of the house despair

of ever satisfying him. If the leader of the Liberal-Progressives had said " I accept this motion which gives parliament control of the people's property," the government itself would have had to accept that motion1-


James Allison Glen: Really?


Thomas William Bird: I am saying that, judging by the theoretical position of my hon. friend. Theoretically, my friends the Liberal-Progressives hold the balance of power in this parliament. Theoretically, they are under obligation to the party to which they are hyphenated. The hon. Minister of the Interior said that he was under special obligation to them, and by the same token I would understand that they are under a similar obligation to the Minister of the Interior. There is no other description of the situation that I can think of. My hon. friend is surely under obligation to the government which he supports and to which he is connected by that hyphen. I am not criticizing that at all; I never have criticized the position of my hon. friend. He surely would not be there in that position if his constituents did not approve of it. I am not criticizing him from that standpoint at all, but surely if my hon. friends the Liberal-Progressives are under obligation to support the government at critical moments, the government itself is also under an obligation to consider my hon. friends when they are under obligation, not only to the people of Manitoba, but to themselves and to their own pledges. So I was somewhat surprised to hear my hon. friend rejecting the principle which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was urging-a time-honoured principle, a clear-cut, unequivocal thing, the principle that we should place the disposal of the natural resources where it ought to be and whence it should never have been taken.
Mr. GLEN; Where is that?


Thomas William Bird: From the control of this parliament, and that is what my hon. friend objects to.


James Allison Glen: If the legislature of Manitoba agreed to transfer these resources to a private corporation, would the hon. member be prepared to say that they should still come before parliament to have the agreement ratified?


Thomas William Bird: My hon. friend is very good at
conundrums.


James Allison Glen: That is not a conundrum; it is a plain question. Answer it.


Thomas William Bird: In the far-off days when I tried to study logic, I was warned against categorical questions of that kind. My hon. friend ought to know something about elementary logic.

Natural Resources-Mr. Bird


James Allison Glen: You have not answered the question.


Thomas William Bird: I can answer it, but I am not going to put myself at the disposal of the hon. gentleman every time he wants to ask a funny question. Certainly I am in favour of the legislature of Manitoba controlling its own resources, and so was the hon. gentleman.


James Allison Glen: And so I said.


Thomas William Bird: But the hon. gentleman has not acted very much like it while this resolution has been before the house. The hon. gentleman's question is capable of more than a direct answer. Certainly I am in favour of the legislature of Manitoba dealing with its own resources. On the other hand, I am not in favour of any legislature disposing of the property of the people.


James Allison Glen: Is not the amendment a negation of that principle?


Thomas William Bird: Which amendment, the amendment or the subamendment?


James Allison Glen: The one you are speaking to.


Thomas William Bird: The amendment is certainly not a negation of that, so far as I understand it.


James Allison Glen: So far as you understand it.


Thomas William Bird: My hon. friend was face to face with a resolution which was as clear as day, and every word spoken in favour of it confirmed that its only aim was to secure for the people of Manitoba the control of their own resources. My hon. friends stood four-square with us until last summer, in demanding that the minister submit the disposal of the Seven Sisters falls to the legislature of Manitoba, but at that meeting, to which I was not invited, but at which evidently my hon. friend was present, as chairman of the Manitoba members, not as chairman of the Liberal-Progressives, my hon. friend evidently changed his mind. At that meeting he came to the conclusion that something had intervened which freed him from his responsbility to the people of Manitoba. He said that there was something more precious, more sacred than the concrete rights of the people of Manitoba. There was this abstract thing, he said, these provincial rights which have precedence; anything that returns to the people of Manitoba the abstract rights concerning their natural resources was worthy of his support, and I am willing, he said, to let the Seven Sisters go in order to get this abstract right. For the bread of power-at-78594-45J
cost, he gives the Manitoba people the stone of monopolistic control. At that moment my hon. friend and his colleagues had it in the hollow of their hands to save the Seven Sisters for the people of Manitoba. I want to bring that home to him. I want to make it clear to the house that the Liberal-Progressives, headed by my hon. friend from Marquette, at that moment in their history had it in their power to save this precious water site for the people of Manitoba, and my hon. friend and his colleagues let that opportunity pass on the plea which he has made in this debate regarding an abstract right. It does not matter whether the abstract right amounts to anything in the way of concrete benefits, it is the abstract right that is the thing to be fought for and maintained, and the lease of the Seven Sisters falls is a bagatelle compared with it.


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is entirely misrepresenting what I said. What I did say was this-*


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Thomas William Bird: Will the hon. gentleman just
state wherein I misrepresented him?


James Allison Glen: If I am given the opportunity.


Thomas William Bird: The hon. gentleman may have the opportunity if he will state briefly wherein I misrepresented him.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Allison Glen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman gives me permission to correct what he has said. I said that the government of the Dominion and the government of Manitoba came to an agreement, that that agreement in my judgment represented the opinion of the government of Manitoba, and that therefore, so far as we federal members were concerned, our opposition would cease and the responsibility should lie with the provincial government.


Thomas William Bird: My hon. friend's explanation
is just as clever as his explanation made earlier in the debate. I reaffirm-and I am putting my interpretation upon his own words -that there came a moment in his parliamentary experience when he was confronted with the duty of maintaining the rights of the people of Manitoba to the Seven Sisters falls, and he failed in that duty.


James Allison Glen: That is your opinion.


Thomas William Bird: It is my opinion, and I am prepared to let it go out to Manitoba as such. The hon. gentleman certainly did not take his stand as he did at first with those of us

Natural Resources-Mr. Bird
who were prepared to bring pressure upon this government to retain the Seven Sisters falls for Manitoba. What I am tiying to bring home to him is that for an abstract right, which ean have value only to the legal mind, he sacrificed a real concrete right of unbounded value to the people of Manitoba. He was in a position of grave responsibility. I am not attributing any motives to him at all of a detrimental character. I am prepared to leave it as a criticism of his judgment. I am prepared to explain it, and allow it to be explained, by the fact of his association with the government of which he is a part; and I say I am not criticizing that association, because I know the hon. gentleman would not be here in the capacity he is if the people of (Marquette had not said so. But I am pointing out the absolute weakness of the position in which the hon. gentleman and his colleagues are placed to-night. One opportunity came along in their political career to save a property of great value to the people of Manitoba; they did not seize that opportunity.
Now, one or two arguments of a similarly fallacious character have been advanced. The Prime Minister in dealing with this subject introduced a well-known device to discredit the argument of my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, that is, he took the principle enunciated by my friend and pressed it to its extremities. That is a well-known device, and I assert, Mr. Speaker, that you could discredit anything under the sun by the same method; you cou-ld discredit the Sermon on the Mount or the Ten Commandments for that matter. There is not one valuable provision in our constitution that you could not render absurd by the argument to the absurd. And that is not the kind of argument that I expected to hear from the Prime Minister- a two-edged argument, an argument which, if indulged in without the necessary sense of humour, is apt to react upon the one who uses it, because it is an argument easily seen through. Nobody at any time contends that any principle should be pushed to its logical conclusion no matter how absurd that conclusion may be. Every institution-the British Empire, for instance-is a compromise, something arranged whereby all the details of government may be brought to a focus under the heads of what are outstandingly important. And that is all we wanted in regard to our natural resources. We wanted to make certain that this method of disposing of our natural wealth, a method which has been so disastrous to the rights of the people of Canada, should not be continued. We were

asking for a return to the customs and principles that have been maintained in British parliamentary institutions from their very inception. We pointed out the importance of these natural resources now as compared with years ago. But all that was unheeded in this argument to the absurd.
My hon. friends the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) indulged in another form of argument. They said: Any principle of this kind, no matter1 how deeply seated in custom, will under present conditions in Canada delay industrial development. I want the house to mark that -"will delay industrial development." I submit the opposite is the case. If *the hon. ministers want to delay industrial development in Manitoba, let them go on with this policy of allowing our motive power -the only motive power we have in Manitoba -to drift into the hands of a few big financial organizations. Industrial development in Manitoba is not summed up in a few big overpowering concerns; in Manitoba it is an aggregation of small industries, most of which use power in some form or other. Agriculture is one of the industries in Manitoba; it too requires power. If you want to delay industrial development in Manitoba, just allow ouir natural resources to drift into the hands of the big interests.
But you say, What about delay? Wei, I have noticed, Mr. Speaker, that whenever we are trying to get anything for the people all kinds of checks and balances are brought into play. Anything that we try to get through parliament for the people is delayed-delayed here, delayed in the other place, and a good many times it never arrives; but when you want to take something away from the people, you have got to hurry up, you have got to get it over with before the people have a chance to reflect. If you want to give away the Seven Sisters falls, do not for one moment let it come on the floor of parliament, get the transaction over with before the people have time to reflect. That is how it was done. That is how it is always done. And here we have the hon. Minister of Agriculture saying in effect: Let us advocate methods by which we can get rid of these things as fast as possible. I say if parliament can delay these matters it is thereby doing a great service on behalf of the people; it is thereby allowing the humblest citizen time to consider whether the disposal of property -of this value is in his interest or not.
Now my time has gone, but before sitting down I wish to amend the amendment as amended by adding the following words:

Natural Resources-Speaker's Ruling
And in the opinion of this house such water-powers should not be disposed of until ratified by the legislatures concerned.


Hewitt Bostock: The question is on the
amendment to the amendment as amended.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that an amendment to the amendment as amended is not relevant; it is not in order. It seems to me that the reference in the subamendment already deals with an act which has for its objective the making operative of certain provincial legislation with respect to certain particular matters. How can you then make operative an act of a legislature and at the same time say that that act of the legislature shall not become operative until it is ratified by the legislature which passes it? The amendment just proposed seems to me to be entirely irrelevant.


Hewitt Bostock: There is no question concerning the right of the hon. member to move the amendment. Many amendments may be moved to a motion. An amendment may be moved at this stage-


Lucien Cannon: An amendment to what,
Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: To an amendment.


Lucien Cannon: The subamendment having been adopted, how can we amend it? I doubt very much whether an amendment can now be moved.


Hewitt Bostock: It may be moved.


Lucien Cannon: I am not sure about that.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. First there is a
motion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that the disposal of natural resources shall be subject .to the ratification of parliament. To that motion an amendment was moved by the acting leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) to restrict such ratification to water-powers; to which a subamendment was moved this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) to the effect that no further disposal of water-powers-thus embracing the amendment of the acting leader of the opposition-should be made until the passing of an act, operative in the three provinces of the west, similar to that conferring certain powers upon the province of British Columbia. Now the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) proposes another amendment to the amendment as amended.


Mr. VENIOT:: How can we amend the
subamendment?


Hewitt Bostock: Order. The question now is whether or not the hon. member may go further and propose, by way of amendment to the amended amendment, that "in the opinion of this house such water-powers should not be disposed of until ratified by the legislatures concerned." In my opinion the amendment proposed by the hon. member is relevant and in order.


Lucien Cannon: With all due deference,
Mr. Speaker-


Hugh Guthrie: Are you going to appeal against the ruling?


Lucien Cannon: I should not like to appeal against the ruling, but with all due deference I submit this: When the hon. member for Vancouver Centre moved his amendment this afternoon he summarized the situation in the words "The motion will then read." Then he proposed the amendment, which would make the motion read:
That, in the opinion of this house, no further disposition of the water-powers, under the control of the federal government in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta shall be made under the Dominion Water Powers Act, but the said water-powers shall be administered by the respective provinces under powers to be granted by this parliament similar to the powers granted to the province of British Columbia to administer the water-powers in the railway belt, as set forth in the Railway Belt Water Act, of 1912, and being chapter 211 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927.
This amendment was adopted by the house. How then can we have further amendments?


Hewitt Bostock: Bourinot says:
When an amendment has been proposed-


Lucien Cannon: There would be no limit to discussion in the house.


Hewitt Bostock: Order. Bourinot says:
When an amendment has been proposed, it is competent for any member to move an amendment to the same. In this case the original question is laid aside practically for the time being, and the first amendment becomes, as it were, a substantive question. The Speaker will then submit the three motions in the order in which they are made, and first take the sense of the house on the last: "Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment to the amendment?" If the amendment is rejected, it is regular to move another (provided, of course, it is different in purport from that already negatived) as soon as the Speaker has again proposed the question: "Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment to the main motion (or original question) ?"
If the amendment be resolved in the affirmative, it will not be competent to move that it be struck out, in whole or in part.

Natural Resources-Mr. Glen
Amendments may, however, be proposed to add words to the main motion, or amendment, as amended.
I rule the amendment, as moved by the hon. member for Nelson, in order.


James Allison Glen: I regret at this late hour, and after so much discussion of the question concerning Manitoba, to be obliged to rise to my feet, and I would not do so but for the fact that an attack has been made upon me by the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird).
I have endeavoured to explain to the house, as clearly as words can express, the attitude I took along with other members from Manitoba. We signed the resolution, along with the hon. member for Nelson, the first item of it being that this matter should be left to the provincial government of Manitoba if they so decided. If the provincial government of Manitoba had taken it into consideration as we desired we should not be discussing it tonight. What did happen was this. A conference took place between the Dominion government and the province with regard to their natural resources. That is a matter with which we have been dealing for many years past, and I think that the amendment moved in the first instance was an absolute negation of that right of the province of Manitoba, and for that reason I opposed it. When my hon. friend speaks of the meeting in Winnipeg he refers to me as the chairman and the leader of the meeting. I was called there simply as a Manitoba member entitled to be there and to give the viewpoint I had and which I have already expressed in this house.
The !hon. member has stated that a principle can be carried too far. I submit to the house that the hon. member for Nelson has carried the principle of public ownership to the point of absurdity. When he speaks of provincial rights as "abstract rights" he is referring to the rights of the people of Manitoba, and they are not abstract. The question Which came before us was whether or not the legislature should have the right to dispose of this power site, and most of us agreed that the cabinet of Manitoba, speaking, as they have a right to do, for the legislature of that province, having said that they wished to control the disposal of this site, we of necessity must conform to that wish. Further than that, I was deeply concerned for the province of Manitoba, and I saw in this amendment grave danger to the agreement which had been entered into between that province and the Dominion with regard to the natural resources. I saw that

if this proposal were countenanced we might find that the abstract right to which the hon. member referred, that of the people of Manitoba, would be under the control and direction of this house and a Tory senate. That was a tremendous difficulty I saw in the way of voting for the amendment, and for that reason I am opposing it.
I say to the hon. member for Nelson that we have dealt with this matter in the best interests of Manitoba, and we are satisfied that when it is left to the province the legislature will decide properly. The amendment proposed by the hon. member would mean that this parliament would dictate to the legislature of Manitoba what they should do.


Thomas William Bird: I would ask the hon. gentleman to read the amendment.


James Allison Glen: I read it, and it means that
this parliament shall say to the legislature of the province of Manitoba what they shall or shall not do. I think that is a fair interpretation.


Thomas William Bird: Not at all.


James Allison Glen: I would like to have the vote taken to-night and for that reason I do not propose to occupy any more time. My position is very clear; I contend that the legislature of Manitoba should deal with their own rights and that we, the federal members, should step out of the picture and allow them to do so.


Mr. B. W. FANSHER (East Lambt-on):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that we have been travelling in circles in this matter. It reminds me of the boys who went out 'coon hunting; soon after they started out they got lost and wandered around all night, but in the morning they found themselves back where they had' started. It seems to me that the government omnibus has become mired; the Conservative opposition have come along with their struggle buggy and become lodged in the same mire, and this afternoon we had the spectacle of the occupants of both vehicles getting out and helping each other out of the mire.
A few years ago, in 1921, this proposition was considered of sufficient importance for the government of the day to declare it a work for the general advantage of Canada, and I well remember two debates which took place during sessions of the fourteenth parliament, one in 1922 and the other in 1923, when attempts were made to repeal that legislation. It is true that these attempts were passed by this house, but they were turned down by

Natural Resources-Mr. Fansher
the senate on both occasions. However, I believe that last year this legislation was repealed; in other words, the government had no sooner divested themselves of the right to claim that this was a work for the general advantage of Canada than they seemed to feel that this power could be given away to a private corporation. I would like to quote a few sentences from the speech made by the then leader of the opposition during the debate of 1923, appearing at page 4166 of the debates of that year:
Hon. members, of course, know that in the provisions of the British North America Act the parliament of Canada has power to declare any works to be for the general advantage of the Dominion, works which presumably theretofore were works over which the provinces had legislative jurisdiction. That power on the part of the parliament of Canada is unrestrained, but in practice is exercised wherever the works are such as affect the people of more than one province, where the works are such that, in the judgment of parliament, federal legislative control is preferable to provincial control.
Further on he said:
I urged then, as I urge now, that these are works that ought to be declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada, because they really are works for the general advantage of Canada. We have declared over and over again a few miles of railway wholly within a province to be a work ffir the general advantage of Canada. Here are works as respects which the province of Manitoba, though the works are in Ontario, is perhaps even more interested than the latter province. The power assets that the flow of the water constitutes are, to the extent I think of about 80 per cent, in the province of Manitoba, and the future commercial development of Manitoba is dependent upon the just and equitable legislative administration of those works. I repeat what I said a year ago: If there ever were works that ought to be declared works for the general advantage of Canada, that are appropriate for such declaration, these are the very works.
Those were the words of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen at the time this legislation was sought to be repealed. I remember that at that time a number of members from the province of Manitoba strongly supported that stand, and no less a person than the then member for South Winnipeg, Hon. A. B. Hudson, also supported the stand taken by the leader of the opposition. He went even further in stating that these works were for the general advantage of Canada and quoted quite extensively from what had been done in Switzerland in the line of hydro-electric development.


Hewitt Bostock: May I ask the hon. member to confine himself to the subject matter of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nelson?


Mr. FANSHER (Lambton):: I thank you, sir, for reminding me; perhaps I was getting a little away from the Seven Sisters falls, although this legislation with which I was dealing concerned the control of the lake of the Woods, which is the headwater of these
falls.	,
I was about to say that at that time the then Solicitor General also supported the stand taken by the leader of the opposition, and he made a long speech in this house showing why this legislation should not be repealed and why these water-powers should be declared works for the general advantage of Canada. To my mind this stand was taken because these gentlemen believed that while control was vested in this parliament these waters would not be alienated and given over to a private corporation. Hon. A. B. Hudson made quite extensive observations with regard to this matter. He stated that the property right did not pass upon the control being vested in the parliament of Canada any more than it did in the control of the fisheries by regulation; the possession of the fish did not in that ease pass from the provinces.
I was amazed to find that the opposition seemed very anxious to eliminate the Beau-harnois scheme from this resolution. We have been discussing a water-power which has been alienated; we have been crying, as it were, over spilt milk, but we are about to give another great water-power to a private corporation in the province of Quebec. I had hoped that the government of the day would give this country a lead in connection with power development, but it seems the government is taking the course of least resistance. The province of Quebec seems to be taking the lead in the development of water-powers by private interests; the government do not wish to gain their ill-will and they are agreeable to allowing the private interests to develop the power. The government of this country should declare that this St. Lawrence waterway should be developed for the general advantage of Canada. This is a waterway which leads into the heart of the country and-


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is not discussing the amendment before the house; he. is not within a thousand miles of it. The amendment relates to the three provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for
712	COMMONS
Natural Resources-Point of Order
Nelson (Mr. Bird), to which I apprehend discussion will be confined at this stage, is simply:
That in the opinion of this house such water-powers should not be disposed of until ratified by the legislatures concerned.
Your Honour ruled a few moments ago that the discussion must 'be relevant to the subject now before the house, which is confined to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta and the particular method of dealing with .the resources in those provinces.


Hewitt Bostock: The rule is that a member speaking on a bill as amended may speak on each amendment, but he must confine his remarks to the subject matter of that amendment; otherwise there would be no end to the debate.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to another point of order. The amendment which is now under discussion, moved by the hon. member for Nelson, has been introduced by the seconder of the original motion.


Hewitt Bostock: The present question is the amendment as amended; it is a different question altogether.


Lucien Cannon: Can the hon. member
amend his own original motion?


Hewitt Bostock: He is not amending his own original motion, as it has been amended already, it becomes a new question.


Burt Wendell Fansher: (Lambton): I did not realize I was out of order because this Beau-harnois proposition has been discussed before. However, if I am limited to the specific terms of the amendment I will try to confine what I have to say to it.
As I understand the amendment now before the house, it is simply that whatever decision is arrived at by the legislatures of the provinces concerned, the Dominion government will turn over the water-powers to the respective provinces. It seems to me that the people's representatives in the various provinces should have an opportunity of passing upon these proposals. Water-powers are one of our most valuable resources and we can scarcely estimate their worth to the provinces or to the Dominion as a whole. It does seem a pity to think that we might have a repetition of what has taken place in the province of Manitoba in connection with the Seven Sisters falls, and the government-


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. I understand the subamendment has been adopted. That subamendment contains a principle, and I would refer Your Honour to No. 413 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms:
_ No amendment shall call in question a principle on which the house has given a decision by its vote on a former amendment.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, March 6, 1929