May 12, 1911

CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I understood from the minister that at one time the diversion on the United States side was limited to 15,000 cubic feet per second. If I am correct in that, it would seem that the treaty has increased the maximum amount what might be diverted, because that amount is now 20,000 cubic feet per second.

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I said that in 1906, the

limitation apparently, as I read the statute, for permanent diversion which would be allowed by the Secretary of War was abo.ut

15,000 cubic feet per second, but in addition he could grant temporary permits. That only extended over three years. Afterwards when the engineers made their examination and decided on what they would recommend, it was found necessary, in order not to destroy existing industries on the Canadian side, to allow Canada a larger diversion, which was fixed at 36,000 cubic feet per second, and to allow the United States a diversion of 20,000 cubic feet per second.

This article states that the power companies are taking 68 per cent more water than is at present being drawn into the tunnels. I cannot believe that that is true because the difference between what was authorized by the statute of 1906, and the treaty, adding the temporary permits, could not exceed more than 25 per cent at the outside.

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
CON

Alexander Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAGGART.

Might I ask whether the jurisdiction over the user of the water is entirely in the hands of the Dominion and the United States, independent of the province of Ontario and the state of New York?

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I am not sure as to that. I think that would he a very nice question. The state of New York has claimed the right to authorize the diversion. Ontario has claimed the same right on the ground that it is the owner of the soil or the riparian owner. The state of New York claims the right, I presume, because it is a question of property which comes within the definition of state rights. However, by the statute of 1906, Congress claimed their right to intervene, under the treaty the right to divert is expressly limited, and under the American constitution a treaty becomes the supreme law superseding any statute of any state. Under the constitution, the treaty becomes the supreme law of the country and supersedes any statute of the state of New York.

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).

It would not in our country, it would not supersede the rights of Ontario.

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I am speaking now of the state of New York. So far as our country is concerned, of course that point is immaterial. In reference to the point raised by my hon. friend, I am inclined to think that under our present law, as the Niagara river is, for the most part, a navigable river, no works could now be placed in the river for the diversion of water without the consent of this government. I may be wrong in that, but I think that would be the effect of the statute.

With regard to the right which was given by the treaty to divert water for sanitary or domestic purposes, as I have said, that right was recognized by the United States Congress in the statute of 1906, to which I have referred, it is recognized in the treaty and I think it is a right which each .country would claim. That is always claimed with respect to boundary waters, .but it is absurd for this newspaper to make the statement that these power companies could divert a large quantity of water under the pretense that it was for domestic or sanitary purposes. The water -which would be diverted for these purposes would be infinitesimal as compared with the full flow of the Niagara river. They could not and they would not be permitted under the .treaty to use water for creating power which was ostensibly diverted for sanitary and domestic purposes. That matter would be under the control of the Joint Commissioners to he a/ppointed under the Boundary Waters Treaty.

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
CON

John Graham Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).

Would that include the supplying of cities with water?

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Possibly it would, and water for sewage purposes, but that was recognized in the Act of Congress and the treaty makes no change in regard to it.

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

This is not a newspaper article, it is a statement issued by the American Civic Association. The statement does make the claim that the

8S95

treaty increased the maximum diversion. The allusion is no doubt to the fact that formerly the United States fixed the maximum at 15,000 culbic feet per second, and the treaty increased the diversion to 20,000 cubic feet per second. There is an increase in that regard subject, of course, to the qualification mentioned by the minister, by which it appears that the Secretary of War of the United States had power to grant temporary or special permits increasing the diversion beyond 15,000 cubic feet, per second. I have not examined the statutes and regulations to which the minister has alluded, so I cannot speak with regard to that and accept his statement. However, I do think that this government has a duty to perform in the matter. In the first place, it has the duty of seeing that the diversion on the United States side is not greater than that permitted by the treaty.

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
LIB
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Secondly, this government has the duty of seeing that the provision which declares that water may be diverted beyond 20,000 cubic feet per second for sanitary or domestic purposes is not abused. I do not say that there is any intention of abusing it, but there is certainly a suggestion in this statement which has been issued by the American Civic Association that some idea of that kind is to the fore at the present time. The statement may be an absolutely inaccurate one. Whether it is inaccurate or not, the government should have it in mind and see that no pretense of that kind is made use of by these corporations of the United States which are interested in securing a supply of this water, that no pretense founded on that provision is allowed to have any such effect as would be contrary to the true intent and meaning of this treaty.

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
LIB

John Gillanders Turriff

Liberal

Mr. TURRIFF.

When does the minister expect to take up Bill (No. 36) in connection with the appointing of the Joint Commission under the Waterways Treaty?

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

On Tuesday, if it is possible to reach it, I will take it up.

Topic:   NIAGARA RIVER WATER-POWER.
Permalink

COPYRIGHT ACT.


Bill (No. 184) respecting Copyrights-Mr. Fisher-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon. On section 1, short title,


LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

I gave a fairly full explanation of the Bill on the resolution, and since that time the Bill itself and a memorandum on its provisions have been very largely distributed in the country. Every one who had written about this Bill, and every member of the House has been sent a copy of the Bill and a memorandum Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

of its provisions. The consequence has been that I have had some replies, and I am gratified to find that on the whole, ratheT universally, the Bill is approved by those who have taken an interest in this very important question. A good many questions have been addressed to the department indicating some misapprehension on the part of the writers. I think that those misapprehensions have been removed by our replies, and I rather gather that with the removal of these misapprehensions the writers are pretty well satisfied with the Bill. There are, however, two points on which there is some little divergence of opinion. One provision of the Bill is that only British subjects resident in Canada or bona fide residents in Canada shall have the right to copyright in Canada. Under the present law foreigners can obtain the right to copyright in Canada, by Teason of the fact that the British Copyright Act is in force here. Under the Canadian Copyright Act, a foreigner cannot obtain a copyright in Canada, but by reason of the fact that the British Copyright Act has been in force in Canada, foreigners obtaining British copyright, could then obtain Canadian copyright, or have copyright protection in Canada by virtue of their copyright in Great Britain. That condition of affairs is about to disappear by the Bill introduced in the British parliament and by this Bill.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT ACT.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

What is the general rule in the various civilized countries in that respect?

Topic:   COPYRIGHT ACT.
Permalink
LIB
LIB

Sydney Arthur Fisher (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. FISHER.

That is one reason, but not the only reason. I have gone so far as to say that in joining the union I think Canada ought to make a stipulation that the privilege of copyright in Canada shall only go to the citizens or subjects of a country which is in the union. In Great Britain and some other countries a foreigner who is of a country that is not within the union, cannot obtain a copyright under the law of Great Britain. If we join the union, practically it gives the privilege in Canada to the citizens or subjects of every country in the world, provided they take a copyright in one of those countries of the union. It is not confined to citizens or subjects of the union countries. I consider that that is a mistake on the part of the union. There is, under those circumstances, practically no inducement to go outside the union, because the citizen or subject of that country, by obtaining copyright in a union country, can get all the advantages of the union. I would, therefore, propose joining the union with a reservation, that the privileges of copyright in Canada shall be extended to the countries of the union so far as their own citizens or subjects are concerned; but if they choose to give to a citizen or subject of a country outside the union, copyright in their country, that will 281

not give to the individual a copyright in Canada.

Topic:   COPYRIGHT ACT.
Permalink
CON

May 12, 1911