May 18, 1903

CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

You give them the right to do a great many things, some of which are necessary to carry on their undertaking, but others would be quite independent of the undertaking. You do not make any distinction. We seem to give them rights whether for the purpose of their undertaking or not. It seems to me we should not go so far as that.

Topic:   SAULT ST. LOUIS LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY.
Permalink
?

Robert Bickerdike

Mr. BICKERDIKE.

This is simply a copy of the Bill which you have been passing here for years in favour of similar companies. There is no change in the usual phraseology. If you give these powers to other companies, I suppose there is no reason why you should not give them to this company.

Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

Topic:   SAULT ST. LOUIS LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY.
Permalink

ERIE. ONTARIO POWER COMPANY.


House in committee on Bill (No. 134) to incorporate the Erie, Ontario Power Company.-Mr. German. On section 15.


CON

Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPROULE.

We put into another Bill a few minutes ago a clause to protect the rights of municipalities by imposing on the company the conditions laid down by the municipality in the by-law. If that was necessary in the other Bill, it should be here.

Topic:   ERIE. ONTARIO POWER COMPANY.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.

I beg to move that the committee rise and report progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order to amend that clause.

Topic:   ERIE. ONTARIO POWER COMPANY.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and progress reported.


CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.


House in committee on Bill (No. 143) respecting the Canadian North-west Irrigation Company.-Mr. Oliver. On section 4,


LIB
?

The MINISTER OP JUSTICE.

I can see no good reason why the area should not be as extensive as described here for the purposes of irrigation and canals and other useful works. If the work is useful, it will be useful throughout a large area.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

That is right. I do not think we should stop the Bill on account of the extent of the area unless it gives exclusive rights, which I do not think this does.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink
LIB

John Charlton

Liberal

Mr. CHARLTON.

I do not wish to insist upon the point I have raised, asking for information, but it strikes me really that this is a very indefinite definition of the territory covered by this Bill, and of the powers of the company. It clearly covers one degree of latitude a distance of seventy miles, and all west of the one hundred and tenth degree of west longitude. This is an enormous area. They can operate through to the Pacific ocean if they desire to go so far. When we are granting powers of this indefinite and general character, we ought to have information as to the object of the company. I do not wrish to obstruct the passage of the Bill, but I do not suppose it would interfere with its progress to have it lie over until we have more definite information.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink
IND

Leighton Goldie McCarthy

Independent

Mr. MCCARTHY.

What does the minister say is meant by the expression here ' and other purposes ' ? It seems to go further than is necessary for an irrigation company.

This might turn out to be a waterworks company.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Matthew Henry Cochrane

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE.

The promoters of the Bill claimed that the object was to use the water for milling and other purposes.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.

There cannot be an objection to allowing the water to be used for any purpose. If you are giving them the powers to make the canals and take the water, why not use it for fire purposes, for milling purposes or any other ?

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Matthew Henry Cochrane

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE.

This matter was brought in question in the committee that considered this Bill. The river, in this case, I understand is Milk river. It flows through a section which this company intends to irrigate. But they might utilize the water so as to prevent it flowing on for the benefit of a part of the country which is now irrigated naturally by the river. This is arid so far as the production of cereals is concerned, but I understand that it is good grazing country. I think it is a very serious question whether we should allow one company to control all the water in the river, and, perhaps, so lessen the flow of the river as to deprive the settlers who have taken up the land for ranching purposes, of water for their cattlo.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.

No doubt, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cochrane) would be right in his conclusions if his premises were sound.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink
CON

Matthew Henry Cochrane

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. COCHRANE.

I would ask the hon. minister to tell me in what way they are not sound ?

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink
?

The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.

I was just going to call attention to that point. In the first place, this Bill does not confer any exclusive right. It is open to parliament to incorporate as many irrigation companies as it pleases for that territory. We have not deprived ourselves of the jurisdiction merely because we give this company the right to construct these canals and irrigate a portion of the territory. Moreover, we do not give to this company the power to divert the waters of the rivers. The only way in which they can take property which they do not buy by private contract, is by availing themselves of the expropriation powers contained in the General Railway Act, and I cannot conceive of their expropriating a river. I know they would not get permission to divert a river or deflect it. That is not a supposable case.

Topic:   CANADIAN NORTH-WEST IRRIGATION COMPANY.
Permalink

May 18, 1903