The Georgian Bay Problems The most sustained battle of the Session took place over the private Bill of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company. It was introduced by E. R. E. Chevrier (Liberal, Ottawa) on Feb. 21, 1927, and did not get its second reading until Mar. 28. Immediately afterwards it was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines, which reported against it on Apr. 7. The Bill dealing with the Company provided for a renewal of the charter which had been first granted in 1894 and subsequently renewed from time to time. The last occasion on which it was renewed was the Session of 1924. The proceedings on the first reading of the Bill were, as usual, purely formal; but as soon as the second reading was moved on Feb. 25, opposition began and was continued persistently until the division on Mar. 28. Opposition to the Bill came chiefly from the Conservatives, the United Farmers of Alberta, Independent Progressives and Labourites. The Government did not commit itself to approval of the Bill, but asked the House to give the measure a second reading and send it to the Railway Committee for consideration. Among the Liberals and Liberal-Progressives the chief speakers in favour of this course, besides Ministers, were members from along the Ottawa River and from Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Other members from Manitoba and Saskatchewan opposed the Bill. A resolution against the Bill was received from the Legislature of the Province of Ontario. The measure was also opposed by the Province of Quebec. The first statement from a supporter of the Bill which gave an intimation of the purposes of the promoters was made by E. A. Lapierre (Lib., Nipissing). Mr. Lapierre stated that if the charter were renewed the Company would immediately start the construction of that section of the canal from Montreal to Ottawa. This would take about three years, and would produce 219,000 horsepower at Carillon and 4,100 horse-power at Ste. Anne's. It would complete 120 miles out of a total of 440 miles, or twenty-seven per cent. of the whole project, at a cost of about $55,000,000. The next section would take two years to complete, would produce 158,000 horse-power, be fifty-four miles in length or about twelve per cent. of the total mileage and would cost about $40,000,000. Mr. Lapierre stated that during the thirty odd years that the charter had been in existence the promoters had twice offered to provide capital for carrying out the work, but added that it had been conditional on a Federal guarantee. On Mar. 11 the Conservative leader crystalized the opposition of his Party to the Bill by moving an amendment to the second reading in these terms: "The character and object of this Bill involve matters of grave national and provincial importance, and are such as to constitute it a measure of public policy which ought not to be dealt with by any private bill." This brought on Mar. 14, the next day when the Bill was before the House, a statement from Hon. C. A. Dunning, Minister of Railways in which he urged that it should be sent to the Railway Committee for examination. "I recognize this," he said in this connection, "speaking as a Minister that there must ultimately be developed some arrangement which is satisfactory not only to the Dominion on the one hand, but to the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec on the other; there is no question about that. But I do not agree that the Dominion in making such an arrangement requires to surrender any rights which properly and constitutionally belong to the Dominion." In his speech on this occasion he stated that beyond any question the bone of contention in the Bill was the water power at Carillon, and he gave some history of this water power. In 1913, he said, a lease of 250 horse-power developed in connection with the present canal works was granted by the Conservative Government of that day to the National Hydro Electric Company of Montreal. On Dec. 1st, 1921, he continued, a new lease was granted, again by the Conservatives, to the same company up to three hundred thousand horse-power at the same point, and this lease was renewed by the Conservative Government on the 26th day of August, 1926. He stated further that the Order-in-Council of August, 1926, reduced the rental payable to the Dominion by six hundred thousand dollars. The King Government cancelled the Order-in-Council of 1926 but renewed the 1921 lease until May 1st, 1927, the date upon which the Georgian Bay Canal charter would expire. The statement of Mr. Dunning with regard to the Carillon leases was replied to by Hon. R. B. Bennett on Mar. 22. Mr. Bennett stated that the grant of Carillon water power came into existence first on Aug. 6, 1908, under the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The lease was then granted to Crawford Ross and was transferred by him to the National Hydro Electric Company. On Mar. 14, 1911, under the same Government the lease was made direct to the National Hydro Electric Company. In 1913 a new lease was made contemplating the development of additional power, and on Dec. 1st, 1921, the lease had been again amended with provision for a larger development. This lease had been again renewed by the Liberal Government on Aug. 14, 1923. There was a further extension in 1925 and another in 1926. In connection with the Order-in-Council of August, 1926, Mr. Bennett stated that he had personal knowledge that between the months of July and September in that year Sir Henry Drayton had negotiated with Mr. C. A. Magrath, Chairman of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission, and that he was also negotiating with the Province of Quebec. He did not, however, know whether those negotiations related to Carillon or not. On Mar. 14, J. S. Woodsworth (Lab., Winnipeg N.-C.) in opposing the Bill, asked the House to consider the larger issues at stake. "I think," he said, "it is pretty generally recognized that we have three or four large companies, or groups of companies, that are trying to secure a monopoly of the water powers of Canada, those groups being the International Paper, the Spanish-Abitibi, the Holt group, and lately the Sifton group. About a year ago we had the International Paper Company reaching a long arm into Canada and establishing connections up the Gatineau. On Mar. 21, dealing specially with the Guthrie amendment, Mr. Chevrier, sponsor for the Bill, reviewed the history of the charter. "This charter was first granted," he said, "in 1894 under Tory rule. It was renewed under Liberal régime, until 1911. . . . In 1912 the charter was amended, and Mr. White, the Tory member for North Renfrew, sponsored the amending Bill. In 1913, the charter was renewed at the instance of the same Mr. White, and also in 1915; in 1918, Mr. Fripp, one of the two Tory members for this city, obtained a further renewal and not a word of protest was uttered by any of our friends opposite; in 1924 Mr. McGiverin, the senior Liberal member for Ottawa, obtained another renewal and not the slightest protest was made by honourable gentlemen opposite.' During the debate on the Bill on Mar. 28, Hon. Ernest Lapointe, Minister of Justice, discussed the relative authority of the Dominion and the Provinces with regard to power development. In doing so he quoted a letter which he had written to Premier King on June 1st, 1925, dealing with the development of Carillon power and a suggestion made by Premier Ferguson of Ontario in connection with it. Mr. Lapointe said in this letter: With regard to Mr. Ferguson's suggestion, that the action of this Government should be made dependent upon the consent of the Province of Ontario, my understanding is that any power which may be developed at Carillon will result from the erection of works for the improvement of navigation by or under the authority of the Government under the powers conferred upon the Dominion by the British North America Act. Therefore, in so far as any questions regarding the improvement of navigation are concerned, the matter appears to be one in which the Dominion must proceed upon its own responsibility. It may be, however, that in the carrying out of these powers, or in the construction of the proposed works some interest of the Province may be affected, and I think therefore that Mr. Ferguson should be informed that this Government would welcome any representations which his Government may desire to make upon the subject. So far as I am aware, any interest which the Province may have in the matter is of a limited character, depending possibly upon the ownership of lands in the bed of the river or within the area to be flooded. Any interference by the Dominion with such right or interest would form the basis of compensation which might be agreed upon by the Governments concerned, but which, in any event, could be determined by adjudication. The attitude of the Government was stated by the Prime Minister on the same date. He said: The Government has no interest whatever in this measure apart from having it dealt with as other private bills are dealt with; the Government has never had any interest, directly or indirectly, other than to see that all parties who appear here with respect to private legislation are treated alike. Should the Bill come back from Committee and not then appeal to their judgment in the form it may have, honourable members of this House will be as free as possible to vote in any way they please with respect to this measure. All I am asking at present, as one who has some responsibility for procedure in this House, is that honourable members consider this vote as one having reference primarily to the procedure of this Parliament in regard to private legislation generally. The division came that night. A week earlier on Mar. 21 E. D. R. Bissett (Lib.-Prog., Springfield) had proposed a subamendment declaring that the water powers on the Ottawa. Mattawa and French Rivers should "be taken over by the Government of Canada as part of a comprehensive scheme for the supplying of navigation facilities, and hydro electric power to the people of the Dominion of Canada at the lowest possible cost." This amendment, however, was ruled out of order by the Speaker as inapplicable to a private bill, and the first division took place on the Guthrie amendment. This was defeated by 105 to 87, Liberals and Liberal - Progressives forming the majority; Conservatives, U.F.A., Independent Progressives and Labourites the minority. The House divided a second time on the motion for the second reading which was carried by 103 to 88, the vote in this case showing the same party alignment as in the previous one, except that Mr. Bissett (Lib.-Prog., Springfield) and G. C. Edwards (Lib., Ottawa) voted in the minority. In the Railway Committee of the House of Commons on Apr. 5, Harry Sifton and Winfield B. Sifton presented the case for the Georgian Bay Canal Company. The latter summarized the position of the Company in these terms: A. The Company has never been, and is not now in default. It has rigidly observed the whole of its obligations. B. Through no fault of the Company the primary condition of having its plans passed by the Governor-in-Council has not been satisfied. The Government has not passed the plans. This is not the fault of the Company. If necessary we will call evidence to prove this statement. C. Through no fault of the Company, the Company is in danger of having ts rights lapse, because it has not exercised same before the given date. (The Toronto Daily Star, Apr. 5, 1927.) Mr. Harry Sifton asserted that the "abdication by the Federal Parliament of its rights," if the charter were allowed to lapse, "would throw the river (Ottawa) into the hands of the Power Trust of America, which would immediately duplicate the Gatineau situation at a half dozen other points on the river. Not only on the Ottawa," he added, "but on the St. Lawrence, too." He offered to agree to three amendments to the Bill. One provided that a majority of the directors should be "natural born or naturalized subjects of His Majesty and domiciled in Canada." The other two read as follows: Until through navigation is established from the Georgian Bay to Montreal all the revenues of the Company derived from water falls or heads for water powers and otherwise shall be devoted exclusively, after service and payment of charges on the Company's debts and the maintenance and operation of the Company's works, to the completion of the works hereby authorized. The exportation from the Dominion of Canada of any hydraulic or electric or other kinds of power developed in connection with or for the purposes of the works hereby authorized is hereby prohibited. Evidence was given before the Committee by the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, Graham A. Bell, and by the chief engineer of that Department, A. E. Dubuc. Aimé Geoffrion, K.C., of Montreal, opposed the Bill on behalf of the Province of Quebec and W. N. Tilley, K.C., of Toronto, on behalf of the Province of Ontario. Major Graham Bell gave evidence regarding the various Orders-in-Councils passed dealing with the Carillon water power, and particularly with that of August, 1926. Mr. Dubuc testified with regard to the plans submitted to the Department by the Company, stating that they were indefinite and did not justify approval by the Department. The end came on Apr. 7 after four days' hearings. The motion that the Bill be not reported was made by Fred G. Sanderson (Lib., South Perth) and was carried with only one dissenting voice, that of E. J. Young (Lib., Weyburn, Sask.). The 1921 lease of the water power development at Carillon to the National Hydro Electric Company lapsed on Apr. 30, 1927, but the original lease for 250 horse-power remained in force. Other Debates in the House. Feb. 9. T. L. Church (Cons. Toronto N.-W.) moved that Income tax, Sales tax, Stamp and "nuisance taxes" be reduced. Resolution withdrawn. He also moved that a national system of registration of voters be adopted. Resolution withdrawn. Feb. 14. D. M. Kennedy (U.F.A., Peace River) proposed that the time had come for the commencement of a railway from the Peace River country to the Pacific. On the suggestion of the Minister of Railways the resolution was referred to the Standing Committee on Railways and Canals, which reported adversely on Apr. 8. Mr. Kennedy moved not to accept this report and his amendment was defeated by 97 to 77 on Apr. 13. A. M. Carmichael (Ind.-Prog., Kindersley) moved that no government should have a right to dissolution before the end of a parliamentary term except by a vote of the House. This caused the first division of the Session and was defeated by 133 to 26, both Liberals and Conservatives voting against it. Feb. 15. D. M. Kennedy (U.F.A., Peace River) proposed to refer the report of Justice Clark on the Athabaska election of October 29, 1925, to the Privilege and Elections Committee. Carried. The Committee did not meet. Feb. 16. Hon. J. W. Edwards (Cons., Frontenac) moved that natural resources should be returned to the Prairie Provinces and that such transfer should not modify the right of such provinces to control their educational policy. This motion was ruled out of order by the Speaker on the ground that the matter was sub judice in the Supreme Court. Another motion on the same subject by Mr. Church was also disallowed. Mr. Church moved another resolution advocating a national policy on coal. Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of Mines, made a statement reviewing the situation and the debate was adjourned. He also tabled a report of the Dominion Fuel Board on the subject. Mar. 2. P. A. Seguin (Lib., L'Assomption-Montcalm) brought forward a resolution declaring that persons having a knowledge of the two official languages should have a preference in Civil Service appointments. Debate adjourned. Mar. 9. J. S. Woodsworth (Lab., Winnipeg N.-C.) proposed the appointment of a special committee on amendment of the B.N.A. Act. Debate adjourned. Mar. 19. A. A. Heaps (Lab., Winnipeg N.) moved that the Standing Committee on Industrial and International Relations should investigate a plan for insurance against unemployment, sickness and invalidity. Hon. Peter Heenan, |