Why should we not meet in the mornings until the end of the session? Committees are now through with their work, and when we come back in July we don't want to stay here until Christmas. I speak, not as a party man, but as a member of this House, and I know that my constituents expect me to come here in the morning and attend to the business of the country, so that, if possible, there may be an end to this session. I say it is our duty to sit here in the morning, and I strongly urge that the resolution should remain as it is.
There axe different posts of duty, and when we come back after the adjournment, we will have duties to perform in committee as well as in session of the House, both of which are important. I certainly think we ought not to tie our-sblves at this time for that indefinite period. I think it would meet every emergency if this resolution went until the time of our final adjournment in May. Then, when we come back, we can decide as a House of Commons what we will do. I am afraid that the government will then be just about as powerful, with its majority, as it is now, and can carry, if it wishes, a measure which at that time may seem suitable in
If it is found necessary to revive the motion when we reassemble that can be done. For the present I accept the suggestion that it be made effective until the 23rd instant. If we should adjourn earlier, it will be noneffective.
Motion as amended, agreed to. BARRINGTON PASSAGE BAIT FREEZER.
Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to give some information to my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), who asked about a return with preference to a bait freezer at Barrington Passage, and about the cancellation of a fishery lease to Mr. Markey. I communicated with the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who received the following letter from Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, under date of April 4:
I have the honour to acknowledge your letter of the 21st ultimo, No. M8, and in reply beg to state that as the question of the recovery of the $509 advanced by your department for the construction of a bait freezer at Barrington Passage, Nova Scotia, is now under consideration with a view to the taking of legal proceedings if it is thought that such proceedings would be successful, I do not think that any of the papers relating to the matter should be returned to the House of Commons. I am also of opinion that the cancellation of the fishery lease to Mr. Mar-key, being now under advisement, none of the papers relating to that matter should be returned to the House of Commons.
That explains the delay in the return isought by the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I promised my hon. friend the leader of the opposition to make a statement to the House in reference to an article which he quoted yesterday from a newspaper relating to applications which the newspaper intimates are being made for the diversion of further water from the Niagara river. In the article from which my hon. friend quoted I find the following:
The situation is peculiar. The waterways treaty with Canada, signed January 11, 1909, while apparently limiting the amount of water which might be taken from the falls, has, on the contrary, increased this diversion. The power development companies have taken advantage of the outside limitations of the treaty and to-day are demanding what will come to 68 per cent more water than is now being drawn into the tunnels for the purpose of turning the giant turbine engines.
I may say to my hon. friend, as I have no doubt he is aware, from a consideration of what has passed during recent years, that previous to certain legislation which was enacted by the United States Congress, and previous to the framing of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States, the question of allowing certain diversions of water from the Niagara river was assumed, I think by common assent, to rest with the province of Ontario and the state of New York respectively. At the present time, under the amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I think that any diversion of the waters of the Niagara river could only be allowed by the Department of Public Works of this government, because it is now provided that no person or company can erect any work in a navigable water without the consent of the Governor in Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Public Works. That was not the case under the old law, and the province of Ontario assumed to grant authority to divert the waters of the Niagara river, and quite a number of companies did receive authority from the government and the legislature of Ontario to make such diversions. The
state of New York also gave authority to companies to divert the waters upon the United States side, and power companies were formed there as well as upon the Canadian side, and did divert a considerable quantity of water. In the year 1906
Congress acted in the matter, and passed a statute which provided that no diversion on the water of the Niagara river, on the American side should take place except with the consent of the Congress of the United States, or the Secretary of War of the United States under its control. That Act was passed in 1906. It was to be in force for three years after its passage. Later on, I think in the year 1909, a joint resolution was passed by the House of Representatives, and the Senate, extending that statute for a further term of two years pending what was then in contemplation, the coming to an agreement between the two governments, and the framing of a treaty with reference to this matter. The extension provided for by that joint resolution will expire by limitation on the 29th day of next month. The joint resolution to which the newspaper from which my hon. friend quoted refers, is now pending before the Congress, having been introduced by Senator Burton. That resolution is as follows:
Joint resolution extending the operation of the Act for the control and regulation of the waters of Niagara river, for the preservation of Niagara Falls, and for other purposes.
Whereas, the provisions of the Act entitled 'An Act for the control and regulation of the waters of Niagara river, for the preservation of Niagara Falls and for other purposes/ approved June 29, ,1906, and extended by joint resolution (public resolution numbered fifty-six) for a period of two years, approved March 3, 1909, will expire by limitation June 29, 1901; and
Whereas, the extended date provided therein for the termination of the operation of said Act was so extended that there might be consummated a more permanent settlement of the question involved by a treaty with Great Britain and by further legislation appropriate to the situation; and, whereas, article 5 of a treaty between the United 'States and Great Britain, proclaimed May 13, 1910, provides a maximum limit within which the United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the state of New York of the waters of the Niagara river above the Falls of Niagara for power purposes;
Therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, that the provisions of the aforesaid Act be, and they are hereby, extended from June 29, 1911, being the date of the expiration of the operation of said Act, to remain in full force and virtue during the life of said treaty, save in so far as any proportion thereof may be found inapplicable or already complied with.
I may say that under the statute of 1906, the Secretary of War was permitted to authorize a diversion to existing com-panys to the extent of 15,000 cubic feet per second, and also to grant temporary permits for water in addition. It is important, in view of the quotation from the article in question, to bear in mind that that Act Mr. PUGSLEY.
does not place any limitation on the right to divert water for sanitary and domestic purposes, but expressly authorizes that right and take it out of the other provision with respect to the diversion of water for power purposes.
After a careful consideration of the International Waterways Treaty, after examination by engineers, and seeing their report, it was decided that, having reference to the interests involved, and the industries which had been established upon the United States and Canadian sides respectively, it would be reasonable to permit a diversion on the part of the United States to 20,000 cubic feet per second, and to permit diversion on the Canadian side to the extent of 36,000 cubic feet per second, so that the right-if it may be so called-to divert water on the Canadian side is almost twice as great as on the American side-
36.000 cubic feet per second to 20,000 cubic feet. That limitation is contained in article 5 of the Boundaries Treaty between Great Britain and the United States. I will just read the third clause from article 5 of this treaty:
So long as this treaty shall remain in force, no diversion of the waters of the Niagara river above the falls from the natural course and stream thereof shall be permitted except for the purpose and to the extent hereinafter provided.
The United States may authorize and permit the diversion within the State of New York of the waters of the said river above the Falls of Niagara, for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of 20,000 cubic feet of water per second.
The United Kingdom, by the Dominion of Canada, or the province of Ontario, may authorize and permit the diversion within the province of Ontario of the waters of said river above the Falls of Niagara for power purposes, not exceeding in the aggregate a daily diversion at the rate of 36,000 cubic feet per second.
Under the treaty the United States have the right to authorize a diversion up to
20.000 cubic feet per second, and the Canadian authorities have the right to authorize a diversion to the extent of 36 -000 cubic feet per second, but to what extent the United States will allow the diversion on their side-whether to the full extent of the 20,000 cubic feet per second or not-is a matter entirely within their control, and with which we have nothing to do.
The resolution introduced by Senator Burton into Congress is for the purpose of limiting the power of the State of New York to grant a diversion up to the full quantity provided by the treaty.
No, that was excepted in the statute passed by Congress in 1906, and which the joint resolution by Senator Burton, is intended to extend.
I notice that in the article quoted by my hon. friend the statement is made that the treaty has increased the diversion. That is not the case. The treaty gives no power to make a diversion, but simiply limits the right to allow .a diversion. If the treaty had not been passed, the state of New York might have done just as the province of Ontario has been doing-authorize a diversion to any extent. That is the right claimed and exercised by the province of Ontario. But what this treaty does is to limit the right of Canada on the one side and the United States, or the state of New York, on the other, to allow a diversion beyond 36,000 cubic feet per second by Canada, and 20,000 cubic feet per second by the United States.