Document Information

Date: 1930-03-04
By: Canada (House of Commons)
Citation: Dominion of Canada, House of Commons, Official Report of  Debates House of Commons, 16th Parl, 4th Sess, 1930 at 241, 246-248..
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

Click here to view the rest of the Confederation Debates.

NATURAL RESOURCES

AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA

Charles Stewart laid on the table copy of the agreement between the Dominion of Canada and the province of British Columbia with reference to the transfer of the railway belt and Peace River block.

[…]

[Page 246]

NATURAL RESOURCES

AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA

Charles Stewart moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:

Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm the agreement between the governments of the Dominion and the province of Alberta, dated 14th December, 1929, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta.

Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

Richard Bennett—I assume, Mr. Chairman, that the agreement will be attached as a schedule to the bill?

Charles Stewart—Quite right.

Richard Bennett—In view of that circumstance, if it is agreeable to the administration we would reserve our discussion until after the bill is printed and let the resolution pass without further delay.

Thomas Church—I think the committee are entitled to see the agreement in black and white. We do not know how the Privy Council will construe this agreement. We do not want any more agreements such as that made in 1905. I think before the committee is asked to pass this resolution we should have a copy of the agreement before us. Is Alberta to have a law of its own manufacture? Is it to be an extension of the act of 1905? It is well known that n clause was put in that act which was ultra vires of parliament. What kind of agreement is to be made with the province of Alberta in regard to its natural resources-its water-powers, its mines, its forests, its lands? What sort of an agreement is this anyway? I remember three or four years ago when I raised this question in the house, an election was pending, and all of a sudden the Minister of the Interior brought up the subject and announced that legislation would be brought into the house giving effect to an agreement. What happened? I had a resolution on the order paper and it was put at the foot of the list. The government of the day kept that resolution on the order paper for four or five months so that no one could ask any questions about it until the minister reintroduced it. The result was that no one in this house could do anything. I think, Mr. Speaker, every member of this house is entitled to see the agreement and to know what is in it. Is this the way parliament is going to pass agreements, without anyone seeing them? No member on the op- position side at least has ever seen this agreement, and we will be asked by our constituents, how did this agreement slip through the house?

Richard Bennett—An agreement was placed in the box of every member in the house.

Charles Stewart—In order that the agreement might be in the hands of the members of the house, it was placed on the table of the house at least ten days ago. The agreement dealing with the return of natural resources to the province of Manitoba has also been placed on the table of the house for the information of the members, and I have to-day tabled the agreement between the Dominion government and the government of British Columbia for the return of the Peace River block end the railway belt, and I am sure my hon. friend cannot plead ignorance of what is in the agreements because they were tabled for that very purpose.

[Page 247]

Charles Cahan—I asked the distribution office for copies of those agreements and was told that they were not available for distribution. I then wrote a note to the distribution office and told them I understood they were tabled and called attention to it, and the messenger came back and said that the clerk or someone in the distribution office told him that they were not available for distribution, and that is undoubtedly the reason why members on this side are asking for copies.

Charles Stewart—Mr. Chairman, I tabled a large number of copies, be- lieving that they would be available for the members. I have done the same thing to-day. And may I say, for the information of the members of the house, that there are plenty of copies of the British Columbia agreement, and I hope every member will avail himself of the opportunity to secure a copy and becoming familiar with the agreement before the bill comes up in the house.

Charles Cahan—I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that when they are laid on the table of the house the only source of supply that we know of is the distribution office, and a certain number of copies should be put in the distribution office to meet the request of members.

Charles Stewart—I would like again to say to my hon. friend that I placed, I think, a sufficient number on the table for the purpose of distribution.

Richard Bennett—The difficulty is that they are laid on the table of the house and not sent to the distribution office. That is the real trouble.

Richard Hanson—Why is it, Mr. Chairman, that important agreements like this are not mailed to every member of the house so that he may be able to get his copy? I had not heard that copies were laid on the table of the house. As a matter of fact, I have not seen one yet. When a document is laid on the table of the house there is such a noise going on around here that no one hears what the minister is mumbling over, and we cannot catch on to what has actually transpired.

Some hon. members—Oh, oh.

Richard Hanson—I am not saying that in any offensive spirit, but it is a fact.

Charles Stewart—May I point out to my hon. friend that the records of the house are available to him just the same as to every other member, and every document that is tabled is recorded in the records.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 17, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

AGREEMENT WITH MANITOBA

Charles Stewart moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:

That it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm the agreement between the governments of the Dominion and the province of Manitoba, dated 14th December, 1929, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Manitoba.

Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.

Richard Bennett—I assume that in this case the agreement will be printed as a schedule in the bill, and that ample opportunity will be afforded to discuss the matter at length if we so desire, and with that understanding the resolution may be reported without further delay.

Thomas Church—Mr. Chairman, I wish to object to this way of putting through a bill regarding the natural resources of a sister province. We are all familiar with the trouble they had in Manitoba a few years ago and we do not want to have this trouble break out again, and that is just what will happen with this parliament interfering with the problems of that province. Are we going to give the water powers of that province away to men like Mr. Backus and other American millionaires? Are we to sit here and, allow this government to pass over the natural resources to the provincial government without uttering a word? I never received a copy of the agreement regarding either Alberta or Manitoba in my post office box. I sent down three times to the distribution office and they said they did not have them. Where is this all going to end? The province of Manitoba has been clamouring for years along certain lines. There have been elections held in that province regarding the public utilities of the province. Are we going to allow the ,present government in Manitoba to handle the natural resources of that province, with the possibility of handing over those natural resources, including of course the water powers, to every corporation that comes along, without any protection, without any strings on it, without any rider, or without a proper agreement? The smallest municipal council or township council does

[Page 248]

not do business in that way. Even they would not pass this kind of an agreement. Are you sure that this parliament has the power? Are we sure we are acting within our powers and that this resolution is intra vires of this parliament? Some time ago the government met representatives of the province of Manitoba here in Ottawa; they returned home, then came to Ottawa again and some time later it was announced in all the papers that this agreement had been reached. Does any member of the house know what is provided for by this agreement? No; no one is supposed to know anything about it, and this just illustrates the decay of parliamentary institutions in Canada and the decline of the House of Commons. A resolution such as this would not have been passed in the early nineties without every section being debated, but now we are being asked to pass an agreement which will bind the Dominion for all time. We all know what was put over in this parliament in 1905 with regard to the Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act, and I should like to know if our friends from the prairie provinces are satisfied with this agreement.

Some hon. members—Sure.

Thomas Church—Last year we had a lengthy debate with regard to the Seven Sisters falls; another conference was held, and as a result the Seven Sisters falls and the Beauharnois were given away. Dear knows what will happen if we still have another conference.

I protest against passing such a resolution as this. The minister easily could have had copies of this agreement distributed so that we might know what it contains. Is there anything secret in it? How many jokers are included? We all know that last year after a debate lasting five or six days the Seven Sisters falls were given away over the head of this parliament in order to please a few hungry political adventurers. Again I protest against passing such an important resolution in this haphazard manner.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 8, respecting the transfer of the natural resources of Manitoba.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Rodolphe Lemieux [Speaker]—When shall said bill be read a second time?

Richard Bennett—In view of the observations made by several hon. members of this house to the effect that the agreement has not been put in their hands, might it not be desirable to delay the second reading of this bill in order to give every member an opportunity to study the agreements and the schedules which are attached to the operative part of the measure?

Rodolphe Lemieux [Speaker]—Next sitting of the house.